Background
Dareonday Stacker was charged in Vermilion County in 2021 with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, aggravated fleeing or eluding a police officer (two counts), and resisting a peace officer. On December 16, 2024, he pleaded guilty to the Class 1 felony drug charge in exchange for a five-year IDOC sentence, with the remaining counts nolle prossed. He was already serving a seven-year sentence from a related Macon County case (No. 22-CF-519), and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
After sentencing, Stacker filed pro se letters with the circuit court contending that all parties — his defense attorneys in both cases, the Macon County assistant state’s attorney, and both judges — had promised him that the concurrent sentences would be “calculated as one,” meaning the seven-year term would “eat up” the five-year term and he would serve no additional time beyond the longer sentence. IDOC, however, was calculating the sentences separately. The circuit court corrected an earlier clerical omission by issuing an amended mittimus confirming the sentences were concurrent, but denied Stacker’s request for additional sentence credit or further correction.
Stacker appealed the circuit court’s June 12, 2025, denial order, arguing that his sentences were not being administered in conformity with the terms of his plea agreements. On appeal, he also raised for the first time an ineffective assistance of plea counsel claim based on counsel’s alleged failure to move to withdraw his bond.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s denial. The court declined to reach the ineffective assistance claim, both because it was raised for the first time on appeal and because the record was insufficiently developed to support it — noting that such claims based on matters outside the record are better suited to collateral proceedings.
On the merits, the court held that Stacker had failed to carry his burden as appellant of providing a sufficient record to support his claim of error. Although Stacker contended that all parties had promised him the sentences would be calculated as a single term, he provided no transcript of the December 16, 2024, guilty plea hearing in the Vermilion County case, no complete transcript of his September 16, 2024, Macon County plea hearing, and no affidavits or other documentation — despite representing to the court in a September 2025 filing that he possessed those materials. The partial Macon County transcript he did submit contained no discussion of how concurrent sentences would be calculated.
Applying the well-established rule that gaps in the appellate record are resolved against the appellant, and that the absence of transcripts must be cured by a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323, the court found no basis to presume error and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant bears the burden of providing a complete record; without transcripts, a bystander’s report, or an agreed statement of facts, reviewing courts will resolve record gaps against the appellant and will not presume error.
- A claim that concurrent sentences were promised to be “calculated as one” by IDOC requires evidentiary support — the fact that sentences run concurrently does not itself establish how IDOC must compute release dates.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel claims that depend on matters outside the record should be raised in collateral (post-conviction) proceedings, not for the first time on direct appeal.
- This decision is unpublished under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances of Rule 23(e)(1).
Why It Matters
The case is a practical reminder that defendants who plead guilty in multiple counties must ensure the precise terms of any cross-case sentencing promise are memorialized on the record in each proceeding. Oral assurances — even those allegedly given by judges and prosecutors — cannot be enforced on direct appeal without a transcript or equivalent substitute showing the promise was actually made.
For defense practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of advising clients at the plea stage about how IDOC calculates concurrent sentences imposed at different times, and of creating a clear record when the manner of calculation is a material term of the agreement. Relying on informal assurances that “the bigger number eats the smaller one” without locking that understanding into the official record leaves defendants with no viable appellate remedy.