In denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, the court declared that, in order to be entitled to a fitness hearing, more was required than simply a showing that the accused had been taking psychotropic medication. On appeal, the defendant first argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment on his nine cases because it did not admonish him that he was eligible for consecutive sentences when it accepted his pleas and admissions. In response, the State initially argues that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the defendant's claims in the first eight cases because he did not file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his motion to reconsider sentence. It is well settled that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. A notice of appeal is timely filed if it is filed within 30 days of the final judgment of the case, or within 30 days of a decision on a timely motion directed against the judgment.
Final judgment occurs in a criminal case when the defendant is sentenced.
Here, the defendant's motion to reduce sentence was timely filed and was decided on December 15, 1998. He did not file a notice of appeal until February 1, 1999. Since his notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the decision on the motion, we do not have jurisdiction to hear the first eight cases. Even if we liberally construe the defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea as a motion to withdraw his plea and admissions, we would not have jurisdiction. The record reflects that the defendant was sentenced on April 29, 1998.