Title: People v. Henderson

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

Docket No. 98887-Agenda 9-March 2005.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
Appellee, v. 
CHRISTOPHER HENDERSON, Appellant.
Opinion filed August 18, 2005.
 
CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook 
County, defendant Christopher Henderson was convicted of two counts of robbery 
(720 ILCS 5/18-1 (West 2000)), a Class 2 felony, and two counts of aggravated 
battery on a public way (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8) (West 2000)), a Class 3 felony. 
The circuit court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of nine years 
for each robbery conviction and four years for each aggravated battery 
conviction. On appeal, defendant argued that the circuit court did not properly 
admonish him pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 605(a) (Official Reports Advance 
Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), R. 605(a), eff. October 1, 2001), and that the 
cause should be remanded for proper admonishments and an opportunity to file a 
motion to reconsider his sentence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of 
the circuit court. No. 1-03-1623 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 
23). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

BACKGROUND
The evidence presented at trial established that the 
offenses occurred early in the morning of June 28, 2002. At about 12:30 a.m., 
the victims, Daniel Fonseca and Kevin Schwarze, got off a bus on the north side 
of Chicago and began walking south on Broadway. They noticed defendant and 
several other people standing together on the other side of the street. As 
Fonseca and Schwarze continued south on Broadway, a man whom they had initially 
seen standing with defendant approached the victims from behind and asked 
Fonseca for a cigarette and a light. Fonseca gave the man a cigarette but said 
he did not have a lighter. Fonseca and Schwarze then began walking faster, 
having noticed that defendant and several other people were walking parallel 
with them on the other side of the street. At that point, the man who had asked 
for a cigarette yelled, "Don't ---- with the Kings," and struck Fonseca in the 
face. When Fonseca and Schwarze began to run, defendant yelled, "Stop those 
guys." People from both sides of the street converged, tackled Fonseca and 
Schwarze, and started to go through their pockets. Schwarze saw defendant going 
through Fonseca's pockets. Fonseca's wallet, cellular telephone, bracelet and 
ring were taken. Fonseca saw defendant kicking Schwarze in the face. Schwarze's 
wallet (containing $200), his cellular telephone and his watch were taken.
While Fonseca and Schwarze were still surrounded, several 
squad cars arrived, and defendant and the other offenders fled. Fonseca and 
Schwarze pointed out the offenders, and rode with the police in pursuit. Within 
about 20 to 30 seconds, the police converged on defendant and two others. The 
victims identified defendant as one of the offenders. Fonseca's cellular 
telephone was recovered from the sidewalk.
The circuit court found defendant guilty on all counts. 
Defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial, and the circuit court denied the 
motion.
At the sentencing hearing, the State noted defendant's 
criminal history, which included convictions for vehicular hijacking and 
attempted robbery. The State argued that, in light of this criminal history, 
defendant should receive an extended-term sentence of 7 to 14 years' 
imprisonment. In mitigation, defense counsel presented two witnesses who 
testified regarding defendant's talent as an artist and his involvement in a 
community arts center and a social service agency for Native Americans. Defense 
counsel argued, in addition, that although defendant had a drinking problem, he 
also had a strong work history and was self-sufficient. Defense counsel 
requested a sentence within the nonextended, three- to seven-year range for a 
Class 2 felony.
The court sentenced defendant to extended terms of nine 
years' imprisonment for each of the robbery convictions and four years' 
imprisonment for each of the aggravated battery convictions, with all sentences 
to be served concurrently. The court then admonished defendant:
"Mr. Henderson, you have a right to appeal which can be 
preserved only by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the court 
within thirty days.
You have a right to request the clerk of the court to 
prepare and file a written notice of appeal on your behalf.
If you cannot afford it, a copy of the transcript will be 
given to you free, and a lawyer would be appointed to represent you on appeal.
You also must file within thirty days a written motion to 
reduce sentence that must be filed in the clerk of the court's office. If you 
file a written motion to reduce sentence, then the appeal will be held in 
abeyance until the court has ruled on the motion to reduce sentence.
Do you understand that?"
Defendant indicated that he understood. Counsel for 
defendant then made an oral motion to reduce sentence, and the circuit court 
denied the motion. No written motion to reconsider sentence was filed.
On appeal, defendant argued that the circuit court failed 
to give him adequate admonishments regarding the filing of a motion to 
reconsider sentence. Specifically, defendant argued that the circuit court did 
not fully inform him that he had 30 days to file a written motion to reconsider 
"all aspects" of his sentence, and that any issue not included in this motion 
would be waived for appellate review. Defendant contended that his cause should 
be remanded for proper admonishments pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 605(a), and 
to allow him an opportunity to file a motion to reconsider his sentence. The 
circuit court's alleged noncompliance with Rule 605(a) was the main issue raised 
in defendant's appeal. He did not challenge the correctness of his sentence 
per se, or any aspect of his sentencing hearing.
In rejecting defendant's argument that the cause should be 
remanded, the appellate court relied on People v. Williams, 344 Ill. 
App. 3d 334 (2003), which, upon similar facts, held that no remand was required. 
The appellate court observed that, in the case at bar, as in Williams, 
defendant failed to raise any sentencing issues on appeal. In Williams, 
the appellate court noted the defendant's failure there to challenge his 
sentence on appeal, and concluded that the defendant therefore was neither 
prejudiced nor denied real justice by the inadequate admonishments. Accordingly, 
the court in Williams held that remand was not necessary. The appellate 
court in the case at bar applied the same reasoning as in Williams, and 
similarly held that defendant was neither prejudiced nor denied real justice by 
the incomplete admonishments. Accordingly, no remand was necessary. The court 
explained:
"[D]efendant fails to identify any issue regarding 'any 
aspect of his sentencing hearing' which he wishes to challenge or identify any 
issue regarding his sentence which was deemed waived. Therefore, we conclude 
that '[to] require remand in the instant matter, so defendant could hear the 
steps necessary to challenge an issue that he has no basis to challenge, would 
elevate form over substance without serving the ends of real justice.' " No. 
1-03-1623 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), quoting Williams, 
344 Ill. App. 3d at 339.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit 
court. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 315 (177 Ill. 2d R. 315).

ANALYSIS
Rule 605(a)
Rule 605, which is titled "Advice to Defendant," sets 
forth admonishments regarding the right to appeal that a criminal defendant is 
to receive after judgment and sentence. There are two types of defendants who 
receive Rule 605 admonishments-those who have been found guilty following a 
trial and those who have pleaded guilty. People v. Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d 509, 519 (2004). The admonishments to be given to defendants who were found 
guilty following a trial are included in subsection (a) of Rule 605, and the 
advice to be given to the other type of defendants-those who pleaded guilty-is 
included in subsections (b) and (c). Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 
(October 17, 2001), R. 605, eff. October 1, 2001. Because defendant in the case 
at bar was found guilty following a trial, he was admonished under Rule 605(a).
Prior to its amendment on October 1, 2001, Rule 605(a) 
required the trial court to inform the defendant that, among other things, he 
had a right to appeal and that, in appropriate circumstances, he had a right to 
have counsel appointed to represent him on appeal. 188 Ill. 2d R. 605(a). 
However, this preamended version of Rule 605(a) contained no admonishments 
regarding the preservation of sentencing errors for appeal. Much of preamended 
Rule 605(a) is included in subsections (1) and (2) of the amended version of the 
rule. These provisions state, in pertinent part:
"(1) In all cases in which the defendant is found guilty 
and sentenced to imprisonment ***, excluding cases in which the judgment and 
sentence are entered on a plea of guilty, the trial court shall, at the time of 
imposing sentence ***, advise the defendant of the right to appeal, of the right 
to request the clerk to prepare and file a notice of appeal, and of the right, 
if indigent, to be furnished, without cost to the defendant, with a transcript 
of the proceedings at the trial or hearing.
(2) In addition to the foregoing rights, in cases in which 
the defendant has been convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor or 
convicted of a lesser offense and sentenced to imprisonment ***, the trial court 
shall advise the defendant of the right to have counsel appointed on appeal." 
Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), Rs. 605(a)(1), (a)(2), 
eff. October 1, 2001.
In 2001, admonishments regarding the preservation of 
sentencing errors for appeal were added to Rule 605(a). It was this expanded 
version of Rule 605(a) that was in effect when defendant in the case at bar was 
sentenced. The new admonishments were included in subsection (3) of the amended 
rule, which provides:
"(3) At the time of imposing sentence or modifying the 
conditions of the sentence, the trial court shall also advise the defendant as 
follows:
A. that the right to appeal the judgment of conviction, 
excluding the sentence imposed or modified, will be preserved only if a notice 
of appeal is filed in the trial court within thirty (30) days from the date on 
which sentence is imposed;
B. that prior to taking an appeal, if the defendant seeks 
to challenge the correctness of the sentence, or any aspect of the sentencing 
hearing, the defendant must file in the trial court within 30 days of the date 
on which sentence is imposed a written motion asking to have the trial court 
reconsider the sentence imposed, or consider any challenges to the sentencing 
hearing, setting forth in the motion all issues or claims of error regarding the 
sentence imposed or the sentencing hearing;
C. that any issue or claim of error regarding the sentence 
imposed or any aspect of the sentencing hearing not raised in the written motion 
shall be deemed waived; and
D. that in order to preserve the right to appeal following 
the disposition of the motion to reconsider sentence, or any challenges 
regarding the sentencing hearing, the defendant must file a notice of appeal in 
the trial court within 30 days from the entry of the order disposing of the 
defendant's motion to reconsider sentence or order disposing of any challenges 
to the sentencing hearing." Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 
2001), R. 605(a)(3), eff. October 1, 2001.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the circuit 
court's admonishments complied with subsections (1) and (2) of Rule 605(a). The 
court advised defendant of his right to appeal, his right to request that the 
clerk prepare and file a notice of appeal, and his rights to a free copy of the 
transcript of proceedings and to have counsel appointed to represent him on 
appeal. However, the circuit court's admonishments did not strictly comply with 
subsection (3) of the rule. While the court did advise defendant that he "must 
file within thirty days a written motion to reduce sentence," the court did not 
describe the scope of this motion, which, pursuant to subsection (3)(B) of Rule 
605(a), was to include any challenges to "the correctness of the sentence, or 
any aspect of the sentencing hearing." In addition, the court did not advise 
defendant that, as is indicated in subsection (3)(C), any issues not included in 
the postsentencing motion would be considered waived for appellate review. Thus, 
defendant received incomplete admonishments regarding the preserving of 
sentencing errors for appeal.

Remand for Proper Rule 605(a) Admonishments
The question presented in this appeal is whether strict 
compliance with Rule 605(a) is mandatory, such that any departure from the 
admonishments regarding postsentencing motions automatically requires a remand, 
regardless of whether the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the 
inadequate admonishments. Because this issue concerns the proper interpretation 
of a supreme court rule, our review is de novo. People v. Drum, 
194 Ill. 2d 485, 488 (2000); see People v. Garner, 347 Ill. App. 3d 
578, 583 (2004); People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. App. 3d 379, 384 (2003).
As previously indicated, the appellate court below held 
that remand was unnecessary even though defendant here received incomplete Rule 
605(a) admonishments. Relying on People v. Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d 
334 (2003), the appellate court concluded that defendant was neither prejudiced 
nor denied real justice as a result of these admonishments. Williams, 
in turn, relied on this court's decision in People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240 (1991), which articulated the principle that a trial court's failure to 
give proper admonishments does not necessarily require reversal in every 
instance. Davis addressed a question similar to that presented in the 
case at bar: whether a trial court's failure to admonish a defendant properly 
under Supreme Court Rule 402 automatically established grounds for reversing a 
judgment or vacating a plea. This court answered this question in the negative. 
We held that "[w]hether reversal is required depends on whether real justice has 
been denied or whether defendant has been prejudiced by the inadequate 
admonishment." Davis, 145 Ill. 2d  at 250; see also People v. Fuller, 
205 Ill. 2d 308, 323 (2002) ("whether reversal is required for an imperfect 
[Rule 402] admonishment depends on whether real justice has been denied or 
whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the inadequate admonishment"). 
Although Davis expresses this principle in the context of Rule 402, 
which sets forth the admonishments that a defendant is to receive before a 
guilty plea is accepted, the principle is phrased in general terms, and would 
appear to apply equally to Rule 605(a). See Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d 
at 338-39. Under the rule articulated in Davis, the question before us 
in the case at bar would also be answered in the negative: where a defendant 
receives incomplete Rule 605(a) admonishments regarding postsentencing motions, 
no remand is required unless the defendant is prejudiced or denied real justice 
as a result of the inadequate admonishments.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, defendant here argues that, 
absent strict compliance with Rule 605(a), the cause must automatically be 
remanded for proper admonishments, regardless of whether prejudice is shown. 
Defendant thus argues in favor of a bright-line rule that strict compliance with 
Rule 605(a) is mandatory, and anything less than strict compliance with the 
admonishments regarding postsentencing motions requires a remand for proper 
admonishments and an opportunity to file a motion to reconsider sentence.
In support of this position, defendant advances two main 
contentions. First, he attempts to draw an analogy between Rule 605(a), on the 
one hand, and the remaining subsections of Rule 605, on the other. Defendant 
argues that "this Court has previously held that trial courts must strictly 
comply with the other subsections of Rule 605," and it is therefore "axiomatic 
that there must also be strict compliance with subsection (a) [of Rule 605]." In 
his second contention, defendant relies upon recent decisions of our appellate 
court where the cause was remanded for proper Rule 605(a) admonishments and an 
opportunity to file a motion to reconsider sentence. In defendant's view, these 
cases stand for the proposition that strict compliance with Rule 605(a) is 
required. We address each of defendant's contentions in turn.
In support of defendant's first contention-that because 
strict compliance is required for other subsections of Rule 605, it is also 
required for subsection (a)-defendant directs our attention to People v. 
Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d 322 (2004). The admonishments given to the 
defendant in Bagnell did not strictly comply with Rule 605(a). 
Specifically, the trial court "failed to advise the defendant of the need to 
raise sentencing issues in a timely motion to reconsider sentence in order to 
preserve these issues for appeal." Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 326. 
The defendant argued on appeal, similarly to defendant in the case at bar, that 
his cause should be remanded for proper Rule 605(a) admonishments. The appellate 
court in Bagnell agreed with the defendant. In reaching that 
conclusion, the appellate court compared the admonishments under Rule 605(a) 
(for defendants found guilty following a trial) with the admonishments under 
Rules 605(b) and (c) (for defendants who pleaded guilty). The court noted that 
"Illinois courts have required strict compliance with the admonishments in Rules 
605(b) and (c), and remandment when the trial court has failed to properly give 
those admonishments." Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 326. The court in
Bagnell concluded that the same strict compliance requirements should 
apply to Rule 605(a). The court acknowledged that, unlike Rules 605(b) and (c), 
the portions of Rule 605(a) dealing with postsentencing motions "do not concern 
perfection of a defendant's appeal." Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 326. 
Instead, the Rule 605(a) provisions "concern preservation of the defendant's 
sentencing issues for appeal." Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 326. 
Nevertheless, the court in Bagnell concluded that there was little 
difference between the consequences of inadequate admonishments under Rule 
605(a), and the consequences of inadequate admonishments under Rules 605(b) and 
(c). Bagnell explained:
"If a defendant who has pled guilty fails to follow the 
admonishments of Rule 605(b) or (c), that defendant cannot raise issues on 
appeal because he has not perfected his appeal. Similarly, if a defendant who 
has pled not guilty fails to follow the admonishments of Rules 605(a)(3)(B), 
(a)(3)(C), and (a)(3)(D) [the provisions dealing with preservation of sentencing 
issues for appeal], such a defendant cannot raise sentencing issues because the 
defendant has waived those issues on appeal." Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d 
at 327.
The court in Bagnell held that "the strict 
compliance required for Rules 605(b) and (c) admonishments also is required for 
Rule 605(a) admonishments" and "the remedy for failure to give the proper Rule 
605(a) admonishments is the same remedy as for failure to give proper Rule 
605(b) or (c) admonishments-that is, remandment for proper admonishments." 
Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 327.
The same result as in Bagnell was reached in 
People v. Glenn, 345 Ill. App. 3d 974, 984 (2004), another decision cited 
by defendant. In Glenn, the court held that, because "[s]trict 
compliance with Rule 605(b) is required and remand is not discretionary," Rule 
605(a) also requires strict compliance. The Glenn court concluded that 
"the remedy for failing to comply with the rule is to remand the matter so that 
the defendant may receive the proper admonishments and be given an opportunity 
to file a motion to reconsider sentence." Glenn, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 
984.
The reasoning in Bagnell and Glenn 
regarding the analogy between Rule 605(a) and the other subsections of Rule 605 
has been rejected by this court's recent decision in People v. Breedlove, 
213 Ill. 2d 509 (2004). In Breedlove, the defendant was admonished 
under the preamended version of Rule 605(a), which, as noted, contained no 
admonishments regarding the preservation of sentencing errors for appeal. See 
188 Ill. 2d R. 605(a). In arguing that his cause should be remanded for proper 
admonishments, the defendant in Breedlove analogized his situation with 
that of guilty plea defendants who were incorrectly admonished under a 
preamended version of Rule 605(b). These Rule 605(b) defendants were 
misinformed as to what postplea motion they should file in order to perfect 
their appeals. Because such defendants were at risk of losing their appeal 
rights completely, fundamental fairness required that, where the wrong postplea 
motion was filed and the defendant lost his right to appeal, the appellate court 
was prohibited from dismissing the defendant's appeal, and the defendant's cause 
was to be remanded for proper admonishments. Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d  at 
520-21. The defendant in Breedlove argued that the same relief-remand 
for proper admonishments-should be available in the preamended Rule 605(a) 
context as well.
Breedlove rejected the defendant's analogy. The 
court noted that guilty plea defendants who were misinformed under preamended 
Rule 605(b) faced more severe consequences than did defendants who were 
admonished under preamended Rule 605(a). A Rule 605(b) defendant who failed to 
file the proper postplea motion lost his appeal rights completely, and the 
appellate court was required to dismiss his appeal. Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d  at 520-21. By contrast, a Rule 605(a) defendant who failed to file a motion 
to reconsider sentence lost only his right to appeal sentencing issues. 
He retained the right to appeal any trial errors (assuming he filed the 
necessary posttrial motion). Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d  at 520-22. The 
Breedlove court explained:
"[D]efendant here and others like him have not suffered 
the kind of detriment that guilty plea defendants suffered under preamended Rule 
605(b). They do not lose their appeal rights. Their sentences may still be 
reviewed for plain error." Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d  at 521-22.
The court in Breedlove concluded that fundamental 
fairness did not entitle the defendant to a remand for admonishments under 
amended Rule 605(a).
We acknowledge that, in contrast to the situation in 
Breedlove, defendant here and the defendants in Bagnell and 
Glenn were admonished under amended Rule 605(a), which did
include admonishments regarding the preservation of sentencing errors for 
review. Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), R. 605(a), eff. 
October 1, 2001. Moreover, Bagnell and Glenn analogized 
amended Rule 605(a) to amended Rule 605(b) (see 188 Ill. 2d Rs. 
605(b), (c)), which, unlike preamended Rule 605(b), provided 
correct information as to the proper postplea motion to be filed. However, 
it is not significant, for purposes of our analysis, that Bagnell and
Glenn dealt with the amended versions of the relevant rules and 
Breedlove dealt with the preamended versions. Breedlove's 
rejection of the analogy between Rule 605(a) and Rule 605(b) applies equally, 
regardless of whether it is the preamended or the amended versions of the rules 
that are under consideration.
Defendant's reliance here on Bagnell and 
Glenn is misplaced. Pursuant to the reasoning in Breedlove, we 
reject defendant's argument that, because strict compliance and remand are 
required in the Rule 605(b) context, it is "axiomatic" that these same 
requirements should apply to Rule 605(a).
Defendant's next argument relies upon recent decisions of 
our appellate court in which the cause was remanded for proper Rule 605(a) 
admonishments and an opportunity to file a motion to reconsider sentence. In 
defendant's view, these cases stand for the proposition that strict compliance 
with Rule 605(a) is required.
In People v. Mazar, 333 Ill. App. 3d 244 (2002), 
as in Breedlove, the defendant was admonished under preamended Rule 
605(a), which provided no admonishments regarding the preservation of sentencing 
errors for review. On appeal, the defendant argued that, while he was correctly 
advised by the trial court that he needed to file a notice of appeal, "he was 
not advised of the need to file a motion attacking his sentence to preserve any 
sentencing challenges for appeal." Mazar, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 254. The 
defendant contended that the admonishments he received violated due process, and 
he asked that his cause be remanded to allow him to file a motion to reconsider 
sentence. The appellate court held that, under preamended Rule 605(a), the trial 
court had no duty to advise the defendant of the need to file a postsentencing 
motion. However, the court noted the subsequent amendment of Rule 605(a) to 
include such admonishments (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 
2001), R. 605(a), eff. October 1, 2001), and held that fundamental fairness 
required a remand for admonishment under the amended rule. In reaching this 
conclusion, Mazar observed that, in the Rule 605(b) context, 
fundamental fairness required a remand for proper admonishments where a 
defendant received incorrect advice under the preamended version of the rule.
Mazar, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 259. The court in Mazar compared 
the situations with regard to the preamended versions of Rule 605(b), on the one 
hand, and Rule 605(a), on the other, and concluded that the "general equitable 
principles" were the same. Mazar, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 259. 
Consequently, Mazar held that, because remand for proper admonishments 
was required in the preamended Rule 605(b) context, the same relief should be 
granted to defendants who received inadequate admonishments under preamended 
Rule 605(a).
Mazar has been overruled by Breedlove. 
As previously indicated, Breedlove held that the situation with regard 
to preamended Rule 605(a) was not analogous to that of preamended Rule 
605(b), and that fundamental fairness therefore did not entitle the defendant in
Breedlove to a remand for proper admonishments under amended Rule 
605(a). Breedlove dealt with the same issue that was presented in 
Mazar, but came to the opposite conclusion. Defendant's reliance on 
Mazar is misplaced.
Defendant also points to People v. Taylor, 345 
Ill. App. 3d 1064 (2004), and People v. Parker, 344 Ill. App. 3d 728 
(2003), where the defendants were admonished, as was defendant in the case at 
bar, under the amended version of Rule 605(a). In Taylor, the 
defendant argued on appeal that he was given inadequate Rule 605(a) 
admonishments, and his cause should be remanded for proper admonishments and an 
opportunity to file a postsentencing motion. According to the appellate court in
Taylor, the trial court properly admonished the defendant that he had a 
right to appeal, but failed to admonish him that (1) in order to challenge his 
sentence or any aspect of his sentencing hearing, the defendant was required to 
file in the trial court a motion to reconsider sentence, and (2) the filing of 
such a postsentencing motion was necessary in order to preserve any sentencing 
issues for appellate review. The appellate court held that the defendant's cause 
should be remanded for proper Rule 605(a) admonishments and an opportunity to 
file a motion to reconsider sentence. Taylor, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 1083.
Taylor is inapposite to the case at bar for 
several reasons. First, Taylor makes no mention of the rule articulated 
in Davis that remand is required only where the defendant is prejudiced 
or denied real justice as a result of the inadequate admonishments. Second, 
unlike defendant in the case at bar, the defendant in Taylor raised a 
sentencing issue on appeal. More importantly, in Taylor, the State 
conceded that the cause should be remanded. Taylor, 345 Ill. App. 
3d at 1082-83. Defendant's reliance on Taylor is unavailing.
In People v. Parker, 344 Ill. App. 3d 728 (2003), 
the defendant argued on appeal, similarly to the defendant in Taylor, 
that he received improper Rule 605(a) admonishments regarding postsentencing 
motions. As did the court in Taylor, the court in Parker 
remanded the cause for proper admonishments and an opportunity to file a motion 
to reconsider sentence. Parker is inapposite to the case at bar. In 
Parker, as in Taylor, no mention was made of the rule set forth in
Davis that remand is appropriate only where there has been prejudice or 
a denial of real justice. Parker also is unpersuasive. There is 
virtually no analysis on the issue of remand for proper Rule 605(a) 
admonishments. Defendant's reliance on Parker is misplaced.
In sum, we hold that the principle articulated in 
Davis, i.e., a trial court's failure to give proper admonishments 
does not necessarily require reversal in every instance, applies to the case at 
bar. We therefore conclude, contrary to defendant's contention, that where a 
defendant is given incomplete Rule 605(a) admonishments regarding the 
preservation of sentencing issues for appeal, remand is required only where 
there has been prejudice or a denial of real justice as a result of the 
inadequate admonishment. See Davis, 145 Ill. 2d  at 250; cf.
Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d  at 522 (noting that "[t]he purpose of Rule 
605(a) is to inform defendants who have been convicted and sentenced after trial 
as to what they must do to perfect an appeal. It was never intended to 
advise defendants of every step necessary to preserve claimed errors for 
review" (emphases added)).

Prejudice or a Denial of Real Justice
We turn now to the question of whether, in the case at 
bar, defendant suffered prejudice or a denial of real justice as a result of the 
incomplete admonishments that he received. The State contends that no prejudice 
has been shown. The State notes that defendant failed to file a written motion 
to reconsider sentence in the trial court, despite being admonished by the trial 
court regarding the need to file such a motion. The State also notes that 
defendant raised no sentencing issues on appeal. According to the State, because 
defendant points to no specific sentencing issues that he was precluded from 
raising because of improper admonishments, defendant "was not prejudiced or 
denied real justice by the trial court's admonishments."
Defendant argues, on the contrary, that he was prejudiced 
by the trial court's incomplete admonishments, particularly the trial court's 
failure to advise him that he could challenge any aspect of his 
sentencing in a motion to reconsider sentence and that any issues not included 
in such a motion would be waived for purposes of review. Defendant acknowledges 
that he did not raise any sentencing issues on appeal, but he contends that this 
does not mean he suffered no prejudice. Rather, defendant argues that his 
failure to challenge his sentence on appeal is evidence that he was prejudiced.
Defendant asserts that, on appeal, only issues of record 
may be raised. In defendant's view, had the trial court informed him that he 
could challenge any aspect of his sentencing in a postsentencing 
motion, he might have raised (in that motion) sentencing issues that were 
dehors the record, and defendant thereby would have made these issues 
potentially appealable by placing them on the record. However, lacking the 
information that any such issues could be-and, indeed, should have been-included 
in the motion to reconsider sentence, defendant did not include them, and 
consequently he lost his right to raise them on appeal. According to defendant, 
the loss of this right demonstrates that he was prejudiced by the circuit 
court's incomplete admonishments.
There are two difficulties with defendant's argument. 
First, in his briefs to this court and in oral argument, defendant offers only 
hypothetical examples of sentencing issues dehors the record that might 
have been raised if he had been properly admonished. Defendant presents no 
examples of actual sentencing issues that he was precluded from raising because 
of inadequate admonishments. Moreover, even if defendant had directed our 
attention to any such actual issues, we are aware of nothing that would have 
precluded him from raising them on appeal below. If defendant had included such 
issues in his appeal, for example, and if the State had challenged the raising 
on appeal of issues dehors the record, defendant could have answered 
that he was precluded from placing these issues on the record (in a motion to 
reconsider sentence) by the trial court's inadequate Rule 605(a) admonishments. 
That, after all, was defendant's main argument on appeal below: that the circuit 
court gave him inadequate admonishments regarding the preservation of sentencing 
issues for appeal. If defendant had presented actual sentencing 
challenges in his appeal, the appellate court would at least have been alerted 
to the existence of these issues. The court then could have taken whatever 
actions it deemed appropriate, including hearing the challenges itself or 
remanding them to the trial court. As it is, neither the appellate court nor 
this court was informed of any actual sentencing issues.
In considering the question of whether defendant in the 
case at bar was prejudiced or denied real justice, we find the reasoning in 
People v. Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d 334 (2003), instructive. The defendant 
in Williams was given inadequate Rule 605(a) admonishments by the trial 
court. Specifically, the trial court failed to advise the defendant "that he 
must file a motion to reconsider his sentence in the trial court to preserve any 
sentencing issues for appellate review." Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 
338. On appeal, the defendant argued that he was improperly admonished, and he 
asked that his cause be remanded for proper admonishments pursuant to Rule 
605(a). As in the case at bar, the defendant in Williams did not 
challenge his sentence on appeal. The appellate court, citing Davis, 
concluded that the defendant was neither prejudiced nor denied real justice as a 
result of the inadequate admonishments. Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 
338-39. Accordingly, the appellate court held that remand was unnecessary. The 
court stated: "Defendant has not been denied real justice by the lack of the 
trial court's admonishment regarding the steps necessary to challenge his 
sentence on appeal for the simple reason that the defendant did not challenge 
his sentence in this appeal." Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 338. The 
court added:
"Likewise, we find that defendant was not prejudiced by 
the trial court's failure to properly admonish defendant of the steps necessary 
to challenge his sentence on appeal. Since defendant raised no challenge to his 
sentence in this appeal, his ability to raise a sentencing issue on appeal was 
not compromised or limited by the actions of the trial court. Thus, defendant 
suffered no prejudice from the lack of proper admonishment. To require remand in 
the instant matter, so defendant could hear the steps necessary to challenge an 
issue [which] he has no basis to challenge, would elevate form over substance 
without serving the ends of real justice. For this exercise in futility, we see 
no need." Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 339.
We conclude that, as in Williams, defendant in 
the case at bar was neither prejudiced nor denied real justice as a result of 
the incomplete admonishments he received. Accordingly, "[t]o require remand in 
the instant matter *** would elevate form over substance without serving the 
ends of real justice." Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 339; see also 
People v. Garner, 347 Ill. App. 3d 578, 586 (2004) (holding that remand was 
unnecessary where defendant failed to raise on appeal any specific sentencing 
issues "that he was precluded from raising as a result of the trial court's 
incomplete admonishments"; defendant was neither prejudiced nor denied real 
justice); People v. Spivey, 351 Ill. App. 3d 763, 771 (2004) (rejecting 
request for remand where defendant failed to raise on appeal any specific 
sentencing issues that he was precluded from raising as a result of inadequate 
admonishments; defendant failed to establish prejudice or a denial of real 
justice); cf. People v. Polk, 349 Ill. App. 3d 760, 766 (2004) 
(remanding for proper Rule 605(a) admonishments where defendant did
raise specific sentencing issues on appeal "that he was unable to raise due 
to the trial court's incomplete admonishments"; court could not say that 
defendant suffered neither prejudice nor a denial of real justice).

CONCLUSION
We hold that, where a defendant has received incomplete 
Rule 605(a) admonishments regarding the steps necessary to preserve sentencing 
issues for appeal, remand is required only if the defendant was prejudiced or 
denied real justice as a result of the trial court's inadequate admonishments. 
In the case at bar, where no sentencing issues were raised on appeal, defendant 
was neither prejudiced nor denied real justice. Accordingly, there is no need 
for a remand. We affirm the judgment of the appellate court.



Affirmed.


JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting:
The issue in this case involves the interpretation of 
Supreme Court Rule 605(a). The majority, however, does not consider the plain 
language of that rule in holding strict compliance is not necessary. Although 
the majority's analysis is supported by application of this court's holding in
Davis, I believe the better approach is to follow the plain language of 
Rule 605(a). In my view, the plain language of the rule mandates strict 
compliance, and the remedy for failure to comply should be a remand to the trial 
court for proper admonishments. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The rules of statutory construction apply to 
interpretation of our supreme court rules. In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 404 (1998). The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to 
determine and give effect to the intent of the drafters of the rule. People 
v. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d 176, 179 (2005). The best evidence of intent is the 
plain language used by the drafter. King v. First Capital Financial Services 
Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1, 26 (2005). If the drafter's intent can be determined 
from the plain language, this court must give that intent effect without 
resorting to other interpretive aids. People v. Roberts, 214 Ill. 2d 106, 116 (2005).
The plain language of Supreme Court Rule 605(a) is clear. 
The rule states the trial court "shall" advise defendants who are found guilty 
following a trial of certain appeal rights and requirements. Official Reports 
Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), R. 605(a), eff. October 1, 2001. The 
term "shall" indicates an intent to impose a mandatory obligation. See 
Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d  at 182; People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 29 
(1998) (interpreting Supreme Court Rule 605(b) to require strict compliance). 
Thus, under the plain language of Rule 605(a), the trial court is required to 
give these admonitions in all cases where the defendant is found guilty 
following a trial. Strict compliance should be required in accordance with the 
plain language of Rule 605(a).
Such a conclusion is further supported by this court's 
familiar maxim that "[t]he rules of court we have promulgated are not 
aspirational. They are not suggestions. They have the force of law, and the 
presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written." 
Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995). Thus, strict compliance with 
the rules of this court is generally required. Village of Lake Villa v. 
Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106, 116 (2004).
Further, requiring strict compliance with Rule 605(a) 
would have the benefit of easy application. Given such an interpretation, the 
failure to comply strictly with the rule would result in a remand to the trial 
court for proper admonishments. The defendant would then be allowed to seek 
reconsideration of the sentence and assert any challenge to the sentencing 
hearing in the trial court as contemplated by Rule 605(a). The defendant's right 
to appeal an unfavorable ruling on the motion would be preserved by complying 
with the Rule 605(a) admonitions concerning filing a notice of appeal. Such an 
interpretation of Rule 605(a) would simplify matters and eliminate unnecessary 
litigation on appeal concerning whether a defendant was prejudiced or denied 
real justice due to inadequate admonishments.
In sum, the plain language of Rule 605(a) requires strict 
compliance. Accordingly, I would find this cause should be remanded to the trial 
court for proper admonishments and to allow defendant an opportunity to seek 
reconsideration of his sentence in the trial court. For these reasons, I 
respectfully dissent.