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) 210194-U

Order filed December 2, 2022

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2022 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

EARL E. RATLIFF, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 13th Judicial Circuit, 

La Salle County, Illinois,

Appeal No. 3-21-0194 

Circuit No. 19-CF-134 

Honorable 

Howard C. Ryan Jr.,

Judge, Presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justice Hauptman concurred in the judgment. 

Justice McDade dissented. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court’s admonishments substantially complied with Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 401(a). 

¶ 2 The defendant, Earl E. Ratliff, appeals from his conviction for robbery, arguing that the 

court failed to comply with the admonishment requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

401(a) (eff. July 1, 1984) before he waived his right to counsel.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
2 

¶ 4 The State indicted the defendant, Earl E. Ratliff, for robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1(a) (West 

2018)). The defendant first appeared in court on April 24, 2019, for arraignment. The court 

advised the defendant of the charge and possible penalties. The defendant indicated he wanted an 

attorney, and the court appointed counsel for the defendant.

¶ 5 On July 11, 2019, defense counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant and indicated that 

he wished to represent himself. The court questioned the defendant regarding his level of 

education, whether he had any mental disabilities, and if he had ever been involved in the legal 

system. The defendant responded that he had finished the ninth grade and had “a part of bipolar.” 

Although the defendant stated that he had not been involved in the legal system, his criminal 

history showed multiple felony convictions. After questioning the defendant, the court provided 

the following admonishments:

“Okay. Now, you have to understand something. Representing you on the 

particular matter in this is not simply a matter of stand up, tell your side of the 

story. There’s procedures and protocol that have to be followed. That gentleman 

right there is here to convict you. He’s not here to help you. I’m not here to help 

you either. I just make sure you get a fair trial. *** You’re going to [be] held 

responsible for any type of discovery cutoffs, rulings, filings of motions. They are 

going to be you[r] responsibility. ***

All right. Also, when you have an attorney representing you, they have 

freedom of access and movement and research availability to, you know, any type 

of matters that may need to be involved in. Also, you have the absolute right to 

represent yourself. I don’t care one way or the other. If you discharge your 

lawyer, any claim about my lawyer didn’t do something claim in the future is 
3 

gone because you cannot claim ineffective because you were representing 

yourself.” 

The defendant stated that he understood the court’s admonishments and that he still wanted to 

represent himself. The court granted the defendant’s request and discharged counsel.

¶ 6 The defendant filed several motions, including motions asking to suppress evidence, 

alleging a speedy trial violation, seeking the dismissal of the case, and accusing the prosecutor of 

threatening him. The court held hearings on the defendant’s motions and denied them all.

¶ 7 On November 18, 2019, a jury was selected for trial. The next day, the defendant 

indicated that he wished to enter a blind plea. The court admonished the defendant of the charge 

and sentencing range. The defendant stated that he understood and wanted to plead guilty. The 

court accepted the plea finding it to be knowing and voluntary. The court sentenced the 

defendant to 15 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 8 The defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At a hearing on the defendant’s 

motion, the court stated that it was essentially a motion to reconsider instead of to withdraw his 

plea. The defendant requested the assistance of counsel, and counsel was subsequently 

appointed. 

¶ 9 Defense counsel indicated to the court that the defendant did not want to proceed with a 

motion to vacate his guilty plea but wanted a new motion to reconsider filed. Once counsel filed 

a new motion to reconsider, the court held a hearing on it. Defense counsel argued the court gave 

too much weight to the defendant’s criminal history and not enough weight to his mental health 

and substance abuse issues. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. 

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
4 

¶ 11 On appeal, the defendant argues that his conviction should be reversed because the court 

failed to comply with the admonishment requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 401(a) 

(eff. July 1, 1984) before he waived his right to counsel. The defendant forfeited review of this 

issue because he neither objected to the court’s admonishment nor raised the issue in his postplea 

motions. See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). However, this issue is subject to plain 

error review because the right to counsel is so fundamental that the failure to properly issue Rule 

401(a) admonishments amounts to a reversible second-prong plain error. See People v. Brzowski, 

2015 IL App (3d) 120376, ¶ 42. The first step in plain error review is to determine whether a 

plain error occurred. People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65 (2007). “The word ‘plain’ 

here is synonymous with ‘clear’ and is the equivalent of ‘obvious.’ ” Id. at 565 n.2. 

¶ 12 For a court to accept a plea of guilty entered by a self-represented defendant, the 

defendant must make a valid waiver of his right to counsel. See People v. Jones, 36 Ill. App. 3d 

190, 193 (1976). Rule 401(a) requires a court to inform the defendant of and determine that the 

defendant understands (1) the nature of the charge, (2) the minimum and maximum sentence, (3) 

and that he has a right to counsel, which will be appointed if he’s indigent, before accepting his 

waiver of counsel. Ill. S. Ct. R. 401(a) (eff. July 1, 1984).

¶ 13 The rule is intended “to ensure that a waiver of counsel is knowingly and intelligently 

made.” People v. Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d 204, 241 (1996). Strict compliance with the rule is not 

required “if the record indicates that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, and the 

admonishment the defendant received did not prejudice his rights.” Id. at 236. A court’s failure 

to provide a Rule 401(a) admonishment immediately before a defendant’s waiver of his right to 

counsel does not render the defendant’s waiver invalid. Id. at 242. “Substantial compliance 

means a deficiency in the admonishments does not prejudice the defendant, either because the 
5 

defendant already knows of the omitted information or because the defendant’s degree of legal 

sophistication makes evident his or her awareness of the omitted information.” People v. Moore, 

2014 IL App (1st) 112592, ¶ 38. We review de novo the court’s compliance with Rule 401(a). 

People v. Wright, 2015 IL App (1st) 123496, ¶ 46.

¶ 14 Here, immediately before accepting the defendant’s waiver, the court questioned the 

defendant about his education and prior involvement in the legal system. The court also 

extensively admonished the defendant of the disadvantages of self-representation. However, the 

court failed to advise the defendant of the nature of the charge, the possible sentencing range, 

and that he had a right to counsel, including appointed counsel if he was indigent. See Ill. S. Ct. 

R. 401(a) (eff. July 1, 1984). Despite these omissions, the record shows that the court stated the 

potential minimum and maximum sentencing range for the offense less than three months before 

the plea. The defendant also cannot claim that he was unaware of the nature of the charge, as he 

demonstrated through his motions that he knew what the charge against him was for. Any 

deficiency in the court’s admonition regarding the nature of the offense and sentencing was 

therefore harmless. See People v. Roberts, 27 Ill. App. 3d 489, 493 (1975). We also note that the 

defendant exercised his right to the appointment of counsel during the posttrial proceedings. This 

established that the defendant was aware of and willing to assert his right to counsel.

¶ 15 In light of the record, we cannot say that the defendant’s waiver was rendered unknowing 

or unintelligent because the court provided an inadequate Rule 401(a) admonishment. Thus, the 

court’s admonishment did not amount to a plain error.

¶ 16 The defendant further contends that he received ineffective assistance of postplea counsel 

when counsel did not raise the issue of his Rule 401(a) admonishments in a postplea motion, 

causing the issue to be forfeited. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a Rule 401(a) 
6 

admonishment issue in the postplea motion because, as we found above, such an issue was 

meritless where the record established that the court substantially complied with the rule and the 

defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. See People v. Williams, 

2021 IL App (3d) 190298, ¶ 26 (finding counsel has no duty to raise a meritless issue). 

¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18 The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed. 

¶ 19 Affirmed. 

¶ 20 JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting

¶ 21 The trial court made admirable efforts to dissuade defendant from the unwise decision to 

represent himself. In those efforts, the court admonished defendant about everything except what 

is required by Supreme Court Rule 401—the crime with which he was charged, the applicable 

sentencing range, and the practical consequences of an unsuccessful defense. The majority 

acknowledges this deficiency as error, but finds defendant was not prejudiced by the error 

because the sentencing information had been given to him “less than three months before the 

plea,” rendering the more timely omission harmless. The failure to apprise defendant of the 

charged offense was similarly harmless because his motions demonstrated that he was aware of 

that as well. 

¶ 22 Apart from the fact that the rules were promulgated to serve important functions and 

should be followed for that reason alone, there is evidence in the record that defendant suffered 

from mental illness and that he had drug use issues. There is no factual basis for the majority’s 

assumption that defendant could or did remember something that had been told to him three 

months earlier and, therefore, no support for any assumption that giving the required 
7 

admonishments prior to defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was excusable because it was 

unnecessary.