No. 2-- 07--0243 Fil ed: 7-27-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 06--CF--3298 ) ELIZABE TH GO NZALEZ, ) Ho no r ab le ) Ph i l i p L . Di Ma rzi o, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEGI LL

ER A N JOH NS ON de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: On January 31, 2007, t he def

endan t, Eliza beth Gonzal

ez, en tered a n eg oti ate d p l ea

of gui l ty to one count of forgery

(720 ILCS 5/17--3(a)(1) (West 2006)). Af ter hearin g the factualbasis and det er mini ng t hat t he plea was volu nt ar y, t he t rial co ur t acc ept ed t he plea and sent ence d t he defend ant to 24 months ' probation an d 33 day s' i

mprisonm ent, with credi

t for 41 days al

ready s erved. On March 1, 2 007 , th e def

en da nt f i l ed two pro se documents with the cour t. The fi rst documen

t stat ed: "I Eli zabeth Gonzal

ez would l

ike to appeal an i nj ustice on 1-31/06 [ sic ]. Your honor I was t hre at end [ sic ] wi

th m y f ree dom when I diss uscused [ sic ] w hith [ sic ] m y Pub l i c Def

ender, that I did no t want t o p lead g uilty. Fr om t he st ar t I w as t re at ed w ith u njust ifi able disr esp ect and your [ sic ] I you would h

ere [ sic ] m

e ou t th e pun i sh i men t [ sic ] di d n ot fi t t he cri me , and I can prove i t[.] Than k y ou your hon

or for y our tim e." The sec ond do cument t hat t he de fendant fil ed w as a not ice o f app eal. The trial cou rt took n o ac ti on on th e def en da nt' s f i rs t doc um

en t. On appe al , th e def

en da nt a rguestha t the tri al cou rt er red i n n otNo. 2-- 07--0243

-2-

t re at ingh er

f i rs t pro se documen

t as a m ot ion to withdraw h

er guil ty plea and that

t his c au se sho uld be summarily remand ed t o r eso lve the defend ant 's mot ion and for pr oc eed ings co ns i ste n t w it h Supreme Court Ru

l e 604 (d) (210

Ill . 2d R. 6 04(d)). In Peop l e v . Gi

bs on , 9 6 I ll. 2d 5 44 ( 198 3) , t he supr em e court considered whether a si

mi la r pro se document was sufficient t o c ons t itu t e a mo t ion t o w ithd ra w a g uilty plea. In Gi bs on , t he defend ant pleaded guil

ty to burglary

and was sentence d t o three y ears ' i m pri sonm en t. Peo ple v. Gi bs on , 115 Ill . App. 3d 950, 950 (1983). After bei ng sen tenced, the defe

ndan t file d t he fo llowing l etter: " ' Dear

Si r, I wish to appe al m y ca se , on the grounds of i

nadequate def

ence [ sic ] by

my atto rney . I was ps yco lo gic ly

[ sic ] coherced [ sic ] i

nto pleadi ng g uil ty. I w oul d also li

ke to ha ve the c ourt appoint me another at to rney. Thank y ou. ' " Gi bs on , 115 Ill . App. 3d at 950-51. The State f i l ed a m oti on to d i sm i ss on the basis that the letter did n ot constitute amotion to withdraw t he plea of

gui l ty, as con tem plated b y Supreme Court

Rul e 604 (d). Gi

bs on , 115 Ill . App. 3d at 950. Af ter a heari ng, th e tri al courtgr ant ed t he State's

motion to dis m i ss. Gi bs on , 115 Ill . App. 3d at 950. The defend ant app ealed and t he appe l l ate court af f i rmed. Gi bs on , 115 Ill . App. 3d a t 950 -5 1. The
su pr eme cou

rt, however, he l d tha

t the letter suf

f i cien tly com pli ed wi th Ru l e 604 (d). Gi

bs on , 96 I ll. 2d at 544. Th

e su prem e court therefore entered a superv is ory order vaca t ing t he ap pellat e co ur t 's judg ment and re manding wit h dire ct ions t hat t he ap pellat e co ur t co nsider t he issue s t hat t he de fendant had raised

on ap peal
. Gi bs on , 96 Il

l . 2d at 54 4. We believe th at Gi

bs on co nt ro ls the re so lut ion o f this ap pea l. In Gi bs on , the defen

dant fi le d
a pro se le

tt er in dic ating tha

t he wanted to appeal be cause hi s atto rney was i nef fecti ve an d hadNo. 2-- 07--0243

-3-

coer cedhim in to ple adi

ng g uil ty. Gi bs on , 96 Ill . 2d at 544. Here, the defe ndan t also compl

ai ned about her atto rney

and a lleged t hat he t hre at ened her and t hat she p led gu ilty even t hou gh she di d n ot want to. As t he de fen da nt 's le t t er he r ein is subs t ant ially simi lar t o t he let t er at issue in Gi bs on , we believe that t he appropriate rem edy is t o r ema nd t his ca us e fo rpr o ce ed ing s c o nsis t en t wit h S up r eme Court Rul e 604(d). See Gi bs on , 96 Ill . 2d at 544. In so r ul i ng, we rej ect th e S tate ' s a

rgum en t th at Gi bs on is dist inguishable fr om t he cas e at b ar. The Stat e notes that in Gi

bs on , the trial

court conducted a heari

ng as to whether the def

endan t's l etter
com pl i ed wi th Ru l e 604 (d). Conversel

y, n o hearin g at all was co nd uc t ed in t his c as e. We find t his di sti nc ti on t o be insignifi

cant . T he er ro r he re in, as in Gi bs on , i s tha

t the tri al courtfailed t o t re at t he defen dant's l etter as a m

ot ion to withdraw h

er guil ty plea. Fur t her mor e, we find u nper sua sive t he St at e's r eliance o n Pe o ple v. B yers , 196 Ill . App. 3d 502, 508 (1990 ), and Pe o ple v. Creek , 112 I ll . App. 3d 10 81, 1084 -86 (19 83). I n each of those cases, t he t rial co ur t fou nd t hat t he defendan t's pro se l ette

r re qu esti n g to wi th dr aw h i s g ui l ty ple a was untim el y, as it had b een

fi le d more than 30 day

s af ter he had en tered h i s gui l ty p l ea. By

ers , 19 6 I ll. App. 3d at 508 ; Creek , 112 Ill . App. 3d at 1084-86 . Here, the defendant's pro se let t er wa s t imel y, as i t was fi le d withi n 30 day s of her guil

ty plea. For the foregoin

g reasons, we rem

and thi s cause to the circuit co urt of Kan e C oun ty f or procee di ngs cons i sten t wi th Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 604 (d). Rem anded. BOW MA N an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.