ok first case on the call the doc today wednesday january eleventh two thousand and twelve is agenda number three case number one eleven three thirty six people versus domingo's counsel for the  our rules are not suggestions they require the judge to to convey all the will substance clearly and accurately but the judge here was unclear and the judge was misleading first the judge told my client to return to the court room to file a pos he he said he thought he had preserved his appeal by signing a form at sentencing so he was trying to challenge the original judgment second j t has a juvenile had counselling after the police juvenile cases go on and on and on and they keep having counsel so he didn't need to learn the his right as much at least he didn't need to be admonished about his right to have what he already had and he didn't need to learn how to file motions that is what i was already falling for him especially the stating noise the language of the rule the judge not counsel must advise the defendant at the time of sentencing this form without offered by the judge nor as far as the record shows read or signed or anything else for reference that sentencing so the direct appeal that's prejudice he loses right to counsel that's also prejudiced but our position is he doesn't need to show prejudice especially for the fur or if not not the before the city charges with the other two he can the interpreter translated the future but was translating the words that were spoken in the court room there's nothing in the record to suggest that the interpreter sat down and when he when he went over this form and the and that the record is sort of you know this this this that and it looks like it was very unlikely there was any time for yourself or my client or the appropriate actually do that the interpreter i believe was a court interpreter and would not have been present at that you know with with that with he with counsel at the time before the before the trial is it your argument that by using the written form he was actually placed in a worse position because of fusion confusion well i would say the differences between the written form and the off one could have created confusion i mean addition to what i mentioned the the counsel or the attorney look to objectively what the advantages were and whether they satisfied the rule zero five be working together and they have to be they all have to be followed and six zero four six zero five b has to be filed historically as will six zero forty is harsh otherwise they cannot accomplish their shared purpose and back to the english  the only other part of make i'm prejudiced is that is is there is there are six or five beanies to be strictly construed because otherwise you're inferring waiver of counsel from asylum record in most cases if someone is to waive counsel had a trial for example or whatever they say you it's our position the six o five we were c's were misleading so much as any other questions i would ask that this board remain on for new six or five years he had missions thank you thank you and honorable justices counsel if it may please the court my name is the vote was on i'm going to send state's attorney and i'm here to represent the people of the state of illinois your honors in this case the appellate court correctly found that the defendant was substantially advised of his rights and responsibilities under supreme court rules six o five b or c and properly dismissed defendant's appeal the record in this case demonstrates that the defendant received oral admonitions from the trial court those admonitions were not perfect however they were supplemented by a written form which the defendant signed and egg knowledge in open court that he had made himself aware of  brad as a whole certainly the trial judge did not read the rule verbatim however they have management's given to the defendant orally made it clear to him that he needed to take some action within thirty days by filing something in writing the written admonishments were the rule probate um and they supplemented what the what the trial judge said orally with respect to the other admonished mintz is true that there was wanted management that was missing but it's the people's position that in the context of rule six o five b and c this corps looks first should look to rather the defendant was admonished of what he needed to do to perfect his appeal rights and their position is supported by this court's judgment njt njt this court noted that the defendant excuse me this court noted that the trial judge did not strictly comply with rule six  take some action in his case when you look at this court's judgment in j t in the context of the other cases that this court has decided with respect to rule six zero five b or c there supervisory power the court first look to see whether or not the defendant i'm sorry the minor received so efficient admonishments in the core issue was whether the six zero five five c admonishments that g t received substantially complied with the rule and it's our position that that's the same analysis that the court needs to do here so while the procedure all pastor of the case is different biennale says remains the same and njt this court specifically look to see well in this case your honor i don't think either of those factors are present and if you look at the record in this case you'll see if i agreed that the defendant may have had a language issue he was spanish speaking there's no dispute about that but what his ability to understand in this case is exemplified by the fact that he did have an interpreter president and the interpreter took was sworn in on the record the record demonstrates that the interpreter was sworn and we know that interpreters swear to translate from english to spanish or whatever language they're speaking and back the record does not affirmatively show that however there's no indication in the record that the interpreter was not present during any of these times and one of the things that is significant in the rocker is that when the defendants and first his and the trial judge admonishes him pursuant to six o five b or c when the judge asks him have you read this form that i have given to you have you made yourself aware of those rights the judge no it's that the defendant has already tendered the document to him signed the record shows that there was a break before the guilty plea was actually taken in this case so while it does not affirmatively demonstrate that the interpreter was interpreting right there the record shows that this was not something that was going on as the judge was talking the form had already been read and signed by the defendant and it was tendered to the judge with this with his signed signature on it at that time so this was not something that was going on right there in front of the rather we can interpret from that whether the interpreter read every word for i can't say that for certain but in general there has to be a presumption that if the interpreter is present in court interpreters doing their job so i don't think there was a language barrier here for this defendant and also the record does demonstrate that the defendant filed a notice of appeal and in english that was notified notarize in certified and that supports the position that he did understand something of going back to foster and jamison in those cases this court did use the term strict compliance with rule six zero five b however in those cases the facts are different in foster the defendant was not given any admonishments whatsoever and he made an oral motion before the court within thirty days to withdraw his plea which the court in jamieson the defendant was given a very barebones admonishment that post trial motions had to be filed within thirty days and the court determined that that was insufficient however what's interesting about foster apart from the instant case is in both of those cases the defendant did something within thirty days in this case the defendant didn't do anything within thirty days he waited nearly sixty days to file a notice of appeal  well this court discussed rule six zero four d rule four zero two and rule six zero five b and said that those those rules are intended to mash together to protect the defendant's constitutional rights but also to protect from some other things the court was concerned about the trial court having the opportunity to cracked mistakes that occur from plea hearings and also was concerned about an influx of appeals from  pleas the court also discussed but not that it was necessary for five nobody in the criminal justice system and one of the things that the world court emphasized was this thirty day time period that defendants need to do something within thirty days in this case the record is clear that the defendant received admonishments that advised him that he needed to do something within thirty days and he did absolutely nothing he cannot time and straight that he was prejudice here because he didn't try he wasn't like the defendants and foster jamison who did what they needed to do something within thirty days and try to attack their pleas but got nowhere the defendant didn't do that and we don't have any  the record as to why the defendant didn't do anything within sixty days but the record demonstrates that it wasn't because of poor admonishments the defendant received oral admonishments it by saying him of what he needed to do and he received a written had not admonishment told him the rules for beta also it's significant to note that back to welcome and welcome the court side that six o four and d four zero two and six o five b again come together they mashed consider whether the defendant was prejudiced or denied real justice it seems like there would be and congruity and the way we applied these three rules that were intended to come together if we were if we review for zero two for substantial compliance and prejudice and we apply strict compliance and the ensuing case also just as questions to help clarify something i mind when you talk about prejudice the prejudice issue here you seem to be saying that the issue prejudice is whether or not raised any arguments as to why his plea was not known or involuntary well your honor i think there's two pieces to that puzzle i think the primary piece is whether or not the defendant was put on notice that he needed to do something within thirty days and if he was put on notice of that and he failed to do that and i don't think that he can demonstrate that he was prejudiced and anyway the prejudice stems from the defendant not being put on notice of what he needs to do to perfect his appeal rights and then failing to do it the other piece of that puzzle is similar to what this court looked at and people versus henderson what is it that the defendant actually wants here in this case the defendant has in his notice of appeal has never indicated that he wants to withdraw his guilty plea or any of those things he wants admonished ments and there's consider there's considerations of judicial economy when it comes to that and that's my concern is if in fact there conversation with his attorney or something like that the only remedy he would have would be a conviction petition and so he seems to be the balances do we wait for a post conviction petition and deal with it later or do we remand the case now or  to match your assessment is absolutely correct your honor that that would not he would not have that available to him but i think we need to look at what rules six o five b and c was intended to do and this court has made clear that rule six o five b and c was intended to do a couple of things to make sure that the defendants constitutional rights were protected but also to to put a timeframe in so that defendants can't raise the defendant to plead guilty can't raise these issues whenever they feel like it and in this case the defendant was told they needed to do something within thirty days he didn't do anything because alternative is to file false conviction yes that would be crux that would be c responsibilities under those rules and that he chose not to do what he needed to do within the thirty day time period for these reasons discussed here here today and for the reason set forth in our brief we ask that this court affirm the was because it was a supervisory authority case and counsel i believe said that the difference is the procedural posture is different we feel that there's an additional difference supervisor relief supervisor relief is an extraordinary remedy and we get it here that's the first point the second point i want to make is your honor asked a question about post conviction petitions and i'd just like to say that those convicted petition isn't an adequate substitute for direct appeal because post conviction petition the right to counsel is only required to present those issues that have been identified by the pot by the pro se litigant now my client obviously is in a very sophisticated client he tried one of the interpreter wasn't there he tried to address the court in spanish our constitution so with those words i ask the reverse the judgment of me and not yours the judgment reversed and remanded for new from six o five in management's thank you both council for your arguments this morning case number