THIRD DI VISI ON March 21, 2007
1-07-0372

THE PEOPL

E OF THE

STATE OFIL

LI NOI S, ) Appeal from the

) Circuit Court Plaintiff-Appellee, ) of Co ok Co un ty. ) v. ) No. 04 CR 23279 ) BOBBY L

EE HARRISON, ) Honorab le ) Michele

M. Simmons, Defend ant-App ellant. ) Judge Presi ding. PRESID ING

JUSTICE

THEI S deliver

ed the opi nion of the

court: Defendant Bobby

Lee Harrison, pro se , filed a notice of appeal from the order of the circuit c ourt of Cook County deny ing his pro se

motion for substitution of judge. The Office of the State Appellate Defender, which was subseque ntly appointed to repre sent defendant on appeal, has filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the Office of the State Appellate Defende r’s motion dismiss for the following reasons. Defend ant is app arently

facing charg es of aggrava

ted crimi nal sexual

assault. 720 ILCS 5/12-14 ( West 2004) . Defen

dant’s pro se

filings in this appeal indicate that he is still awaiting trial . They als o ind icate that d uring t he cou rse of t he year 200 6, he a ppeare d befo re Ju dge Michele M. Simmons on several occasions and expressed his desire to proceed pro se . This led to a serie s of disput

es betwe en defe

ndant, Judge Simmons, a nd defen dant’s a ppointed p

ublic defender. On January 2, 2007, defe

ndant filed a motion for substitution of judge (725 IL CS 5/114-5 (West 2004) ), clai ming t hat J udge Si mmon s was b iased agains t him . Anot her cir cuit c ourt j udge1-07-0372

2

entertained defendant’s motion and denied it on January 24, 2007. Defendant subsequently filed a “Motion for A Notice of Appeal” in the circuit cour t on February

2, 2007, in which he sought to appeal from the denial of his motion for substitution of judge. The Off ice of the State Ap

pellate D efende

r filed a motion to dismiss this ap peal, contending this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s appe al because the circuit court’s orde r den yi ng de fend ant’ s moti on for sub stitu

tion o f judge is ne ither

fina l nor a ppea lable . We agree. Generally , appellate jurisdiction exists only to review final order s. Niccum v. Botti, Marinaccio, DeSalvo & Tameling, L td. , 182 I ll. 2d 6, 7, 6 94 N.E.2d 562, 563 ( 1998); Weiss v. Waterhouse Securities, Inc. , 335 Ill. App. 3d 875, 880, 781 N.E.2d 1105, 1109 (2002). An order is said to be

final if i t “ ‘ “disp oses of the right s of the pa rties, ei ther upon the entir e controversy or upon some definite and separate part there of,” ’ ” such as a claim in a civil case. In re Estate of French , 166 Ill . 2d 95 , 101, 651 N. E.2d 1 125, 1 128 (1 995), quot ing Treece v. Shawnee Community Unit School District No. 84 , 39 Ill. 2d 136, 139, 233 N.E.2d 549 (1968), quoting Village of Niles v. Szczesny , 13 Ill. 2d 45, 48, 147 N.E.2d 371 (1958). The denial of a motion for substitution of judge is not a final order. In re A.N. , 324 I ll. App. 3d 510, 511-12, 755 N.E.2d 155, 157 (2001). Rather, it has been described as “a step in the procedural progression leading to” judgment. A.N. , 324 Ill. App. 3d at 512, 755 N.E.2d at 157- 58. In a criminal case, the re is no final judgment until the imposition of sentence, and, in the absence of that fi nal judg ment, an a

ppeal ca nnot be en

tertaine d except a s specif ied in Supr

eme Court Rule 604 (210 Ill. 2d R. 604). People v. Dotson , 214 Ill. App. 3d 637, 645, 574 N.E.2d1-07-0372

3

143, 1 48 (19 91), c itin g People v. Flores , 128 Ill. 2d 66, 538 N.E.2d 481 (1989). In the present case , because defendant has not been sente nced, there has been no final judgment. Dotson , 214 Ill. App. 3d at 645, 574 N.E.2d at 148. I n addition, Rule 604 does not confer any

independent grounds for an immediate appea l from the denial of the motion. See 210 Ill. 2d R. 604. Accordingly , at this juncture, we have no jurisdiction to entertain his claim that the circuit court erred in deny ing his motion for substitution of judge. Cf. A.N. , 324 Ill. App. 3d at 511 -12, 7 55 N.E .2d at 157-5 8 (hol ding t hat al thou gh deni al of m otio n for s ubst itut ion o f judge was not a final, appealable order in its own rig ht, jurisdiction existed to consider the issue because interloc utory appeal f rom denia

l of injunctive reli ef was im mediatel y a ppealab le pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (188 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)(1)) and the denial of the motion for substitution of judge was a step in the procedural prog ression leading to that judgment). We therefore dismiss defendant’s appeal for lac k of jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. GREIMAN and KARNEZIS, JJ., concur.REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT

_________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. BOBBY LEE HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ No. 1-07-0372 Appellate

Court of Ill

inois First District, Third Division Filed: March 21, 2007

_________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court.

Greiman and Karnezis, JJ., concur.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County Honorable M

ichelle M . Simm ons, Judge P residing

_______________________________________________________________ __ For DEFENDANT - APPEL LANT, Bobby Lee Harrison, Pro Se ID# 2004-0072892 Div. 1 G-2 P.O. Box 089002 Chicago, IL 60608
For PLAINTIFF

- APPEL LEE, Richard A. Devine, State’s Attorney 300 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602