People v. Donelson

State and Defendant, parties to a fully negotiated plea agreement, were mutually mistaken as to manner in which sentences of imprisonment must be served (whether consecutive or concurrent.) Lesser, 30-year sentences for which Defendant negotiated represented the maximum nonextended-term sentences for the attendant offenses, and were the specific sentences Defendant sought for home invasion and aggravated criminal sexual assault. Parties believed that those lesser sentences would not affect the maximum amount of time Defendant would spend in prison. Thus, sentence can be reconfigured, consistently with statutory mandates, so as to give Defendant the benefit of his bargain. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)