______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2022 IL App (5th) 220004-U 

NOTICE NOTICE 

Decision filed 09/06/22. The This order was filed under 

text of this decision may be NO. 5-22-0004 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the 

the filing of a Peti ion for IN THE limited circumstances allowed 

Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). 

the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the 

) Circuit Court of 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Macon County. 

) 

v. ) No. 17-CF-478 

) 

DUAN LEWIS, ) Honorable 

) Thomas E. Griffith, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Welch concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER 

¶ 1 Held: The trial court lacked jurisdiction of defendant’s “motion to correct mittimus” 

when it was filed more than 30 days after defendant’s guilty plea and sought to 

change the judgment. Accordingly, we grant OSAD’S motion for leave to withdraw 

and dismiss the appeal. 

¶ 2 Defendant, Duan Lewis, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his motion to correct the 

mittimus. Defendant’s appointed attorney on appeal, the Office of the State Appellate Defender 

(OSAD), concluded this appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, OSAD filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel for defendant (see Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987)) along with a brief in 

support of the motion. OSAD provided defendant a copy of its Finley motion and brief. Although 

this court provided defendant with an opportunity to file a response to OSAD’s motion or explain 

why this appeal has merit, no response was filed. Having reviewed OSAD’s Finley motion and 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

brief and the record on appeal, we conclude this appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, we grant OSAD 

leave to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. 

¶ 3 BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 On November 19, 2018, following the death of his six-month-old daughter, defendant pled 

guilty to involuntary manslaughter and aggravated battery of a child in exchange for a sentence of 

10 years’ imprisonment on each count. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant was sentenced to two 

10-year prison terms, to be served consecutively. 

¶ 5 In 2019, defendant filed a motion to correct the mittimus to reflect that the sentences were 

to run concurrently, based on an alleged agreement between defendant and his attorney. At the 

hearing on the motion, his attorney confirmed that the plea agreement was for consecutive 

sentences and, thus, the mittimus was correct. 

¶ 6 In March 2020, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal in the trial 

court. It does not appear that defendant ever filed a motion in this court as required by Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 606(c) (eff. July 1, 2017). In any event, the trial court denied the motion. 

¶ 7 In November 2020, defendant filed a postconviction petition, which he subsequently 

withdrew. In November 2021, defendant filed another motion to correct the mittimus to reflect that 

the sentences were to run concurrently, this time asserting that his consecutive sentences violated 

the one-act, one-crime rule. The trial court dismissed the motion based on res judicata. Defendant 

appealed. 

¶ 8 ANALYSIS 

¶ 9 OSAD asserts that there is no arguably meritorious argument that the trial court erred in 

dismissing defendant’s second motion to correct the mittimus. We agree. 

2 
 

 

 

 

¶ 10 It is our responsibility to consider the matter of jurisdiction sua sponte. People ex rel. 

Haughawout v. Lantow, 59 Ill. App. 2d 406, 410 (1965). Although a trial court has continuing 

jurisdiction to correct clerical errors and other matters of form so that the record conforms to the 

actual judgment, it generally loses jurisdiction to modify its judgment or alter a sentence 30 days 

after entry of the judgment. People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 303, 306-07 (2003). Here, 

defendant’s November 2021 “motion to correct [the] mittimus” did not seek to correct any clerical 

errors or make the record conform to the oral pronouncement of the judgment. Instead, two years 

after judgment was entered on his guilty plea, defendant filed a motion seeking to substantively 

modify the judgment of consecutive sentences to concurrent sentences. Accordingly, the trial court 

was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion, and its dismissal thereof was proper. 

¶ 11 Although the trial court did not dismiss defendant’s motion on jurisdictional grounds, this 

court can affirm the trial court’s judgment on any grounds appearing in the record. Moody v. 

Federal Express Corp., 368 Ill. App. 3d 838, 841 (2006). For the foregoing reasons, we grant 

OSAD’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. See Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 307 (where lower 

court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal). 

¶ 12 Motion granted; appeal dismissed. 

3