NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2022 IL App (3d) 210271-U

Order filed November 22, 2022

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2022 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

WILLIE A. MOLINA JR., ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 13th Judicial Circuit, 

La Salle County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-21-0271 

Circuit No. 18-CF-549 

Honorable 

Cynthia M. Raccuglia, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Hauptman and Peterson concurred in the judgment.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The court did not substantially comply with Rule 605(c). 

¶ 2 Defendant, Willie A. Molina Jr., appeals following this court’s summary remand for 

counsel to file a certificate in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 

2017). Defendant argues that a second remand is required for new postplea proceedings because 

the La Salle County circuit court failed to properly admonish him under Illinois Supreme Court 
2 

Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). Defendant also argues that counsel failed to comply with Rule 

604(d). We reverse and remand with directions. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of a stolen vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1) 

(West 2018)) and residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3(a) (West 2018)). The plea included an 

agreed sentencing cap of 18 years’ imprisonment and the State’s dismissal of several other charges.

The court provided the Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(a) admonishments but did not inform 

defendant of his appeal rights. Following the entry of his plea, defendant filed a motion to vacate 

his guilty plea, alleging that at the time of his plea he was “under duress” and “did not understand 

clearly.” The court continued the matter for a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty 

plea and sentencing.

¶ 5 Prior to sentencing, defendant withdrew the motion to vacate his guilty plea. The court 

sentenced defendant to 16 years’ imprisonment. The court admonished defendant “your only 

option is to file that motion again to vacate your guilty plea 30 days from today’s date, or you 

waive any further appeal rights.”

¶ 6 Defendant filed, as a self-represented litigant, a “motion for reduction of sentence.” The 

court appointed counsel to represent defendant. On a later date, counsel informed the court that 

defendant did not wish to proceed on a motion to vacate his guilty plea. The court inquired of 

defendant whether he wanted to vacate his guilty plea or proceed on a motion to reconsider his 

sentence to perfect his appeal. The court stated, “you have an absolute right to have this court hear 

the motion to reconsider sentence and your motion to vacate your guilty plea” and confirmed that 

defendant wanted to file a motion to reconsider his sentence. Counsel filed a motion to reconsider 

sentence and a Rule 604(d) certificate. Again, counsel informed the court that defendant did not 
3 

want to proceed with a motion to vacate his guilty plea. The court denied defendant’s motion to 

reconsider sentence. 

¶ 7 On appeal, we granted defendant’s unopposed motion to remand the cause to the circuit 

court for compliance with Rule 604(d). People v. Molina, No. 3-20-0527 (2021) (unpublished 

minute order).

¶ 8 On remand, counsel filed a new Rule 604(d) certificate and motion to reconsider sentence. 

The court denied the motion, stating “[a]nd now that you have perfected that in this court, you 

have a right to appeal to the Third District Appellate Court your sentence.” Defendant appealed.

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Defendant argues that the cause should be remanded for a second time for new postplea 

proceedings where the circuit court failed to provide a substantially compliant Rule 605(c) 

admonishment. Defendant also argues that counsel failed to comply with Rule 604(d).

¶ 11 Following the entry of a negotiated guilty plea, Rule 605(c) requires the court to admonish 

defendant of the Rule 604(d) requirements that must be satisfied to preserve defendant’s right to 

appeal. People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 27 (1998); Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Rule 

605(c) states the court shall advise defendant

 “(1) that the defendant has a right to appeal;

 (2) that prior to taking an appeal 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 judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, setting 

forth the grounds for the motion; 
4 

 (3) that if the motion is allowed, the plea of guilty, sentence and judgment 

will be vacated and a trial date will be set on the charges to which the plea of guilty 

was made; 

 (4) that upon the request of the State any charges that may have been 

dismissed as a part of a plea agreement will be reinstated and will also be set for 

trial; 

 (5) that if defendant is indigent, a copy of the transcript of the proceedings 

at the time of the defendant’s plea of guilty and sentence will be provided without 

cost to the defendant and counsel will be appointed to assist the defendant with the 

preparation of the motions; and 

 (6) that in any appeal taken from the judgment on the plea of guilty any 

issue or claim of error not raised in the motion to vacate the judgment and to 

withdraw the plea of guilty shall be deemed waived.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Oct. 

1, 2001).

¶ 12 Rule 605(c) is a necessary companion to Rule 604(d) where strict compliance with Rule 

604(d) is a prerequisite for an appeal. People v. Little, 318 Ill. App. 3d 75, 79 (2001). Thus, 

fundamental fairness requires that “[w]hen the trial court fails to properly admonish a defendant 

how to perfect an appeal from a negotiated guilty plea, and defendant fails to follow Rule 604(d), 

it is appropriate to remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with Rule 605(c).” 

People v. Pressey, 357 Ill. App. 3d 887, 890 (2005); see also Little, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 79.

¶ 13 A court may substantially comply with Rule 605(c) so long as the court’s admonishment 

imparts “to a defendant largely that which is specified in the rule, or the rule’s ‘essence’ as opposed 

to ‘wholly’ what is specified in the rule.” People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 19. An improper 
5 

admonishment alone will not automatically require a remand. People v. Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d 

334, 338 (2003). Instead, remand or reversal is dependent upon “ ‘whether real justice has been 

denied or whether [the] defendant has been prejudiced by the inadequate admonishment.’ ” 

(Emphases in original.) Id. (quoting People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240, 250 (1991)). We review a 

court’s compliance with supreme court rules de novo. People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606, 

608 (2005).

¶ 14 In the present case, the court admonished defendant that to appeal his sentence defendant’s 

“only option” would be to file a motion to vacate within 30 days or risk waiving his appeal rights. 

However, Rule 605(c) required the court to also impart that defendant (1) had the right to appeal,

(2) that prior to appealing his sentence he must file a written motion and set forth grounds in a 

motion to vacate the judgment and withdraw his guilty plea, (3) that if the court grants that motion, 

his judgment and sentence would be vacated and a trial date would be set on the charges that he 

pled to and the charges that the State dismissed pursuant to that plea, and (4) that if defendant is 

indigent, a copy of the transcript of the proceedings would be provided and counsel would be 

appointed to assist the defendant with the preparation of the motions. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. 

Oct. 1, 2001). The court’s omission of a majority of the Rule 605(c) admonishment did not impart 

“largely that which is specified in the rule.” Cf. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 19. Further, the

court’s initial admonishments were undermined by it later informing defendant that he could also 

file a motion to reconsider his sentence to perfect his appeal and that his motion to reconsider 

sentence did perfect his appeal. Supra ¶¶ 5, 6, 8. The procedure advised by the court deprived 

defendant of his right to appeal his conviction as it did not comply with the requirements under 

Rule 604(d) and, thus, does not substantially comply with Rule 605(c). Accordingly, fundamental 

fairness requires that we reverse the ruling on defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence and
6 

remand the cause for compliance with Rule 605(c). On remand, we direct the court to admonish 

defendant in accordance with Rule 605(c) before defendant proceeds on any new postplea motions. 

As our ruling on the first issues requires reversal of defendant’s postplea motion and de novo 

proceedings, his second issue is rendered moot and we need not address it.

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is reversed and remanded with 

directions. 

¶ 17 Reversed and remanded with directions.