People v. Jolly

── People v. Jolly ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 241058-U NOTICE Decision filed 04/17/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-1058 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Wayne County. ) v. ) No. 21-CF-131 ) RONALD D. JOLLY, ) Honorable ) Denton W. Aud, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Cates and Justice McHaney concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s amended motion for order nunc pro tunc. Defendant entered into a fully negotiated guilty plea agreement that included an express provision for 115 days of sentencing credit for pretrial custody; accordingly, People v. Wells, 2024 IL 129402, bars the additional sentencing credit relief sought by defendant, which was not included in the plea agreement. Because no argument to the contrary would have arguable merit, defendant’s appellate counsel is granted leave to withdraw, and the judgment is affirmed. ¶2 Defendant, Ronald D. Jolly, is serving a sentence of 17.5 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, pursuant to a fully negotiated guilty plea agreement. He appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Wayne County that denied his amended motion for an order nunc pro tunc, in which he requested sentencing credit in addition to that provided for by the express terms of the plea agreement. The Office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) was appointed as defendant’s appellate counsel. OSAD has concluded that this appeal lacks arguable merit and, on that basis, 1 has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel, pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), along with a supporting memorandum of law. OSAD properly served defendant with notice. This court gave defendant the opportunity to file a response to OSAD’s motion, and defendant has filed a response, which we discuss below. Having considered OSAD’s Finley motion and memorandum, defendant’s response, and the entire record on appeal, this court agrees with OSAD’s assessment. We therefore grant OSAD’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Wayne County. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 This appeal involves the resolution by plea agreement of multiple felony and misdemeanor charges filed against defendant in Wayne County, beginning in 2021. At a pretrial hearing on Ma