Court Opinion

ID: 9861306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:53:00.646666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:11.897705
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting: The issue in this case involves the interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 605(a). The majority, however, does not consider the plain language of that rule in holding strict compliance is not necessary. Although the majority’s analysis is supported by application of this court’s holding in Davis, I believe the better approach is to follow the plain language of Rule 605(a). In my view, the plain language of the rule mandates strict compliance, and the remedy for failure to comply should be a remand to the trial court for proper admonishments. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The rules of statutory construction apply to interpretation of our supreme court rules. In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 404 (1998). The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intent of the drafters of the rule. People v. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d 176, 179 (2005). The best evidence of intent is the plain language used by the drafter. King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1, 26 (2005). If the drafter’s intent can be determined from the plain language, this court must give that intent effect without resorting to other interpretive aids. People v. Roberts, 214 Ill. 2d 106, 116 (2005). The plain language of Supreme Court Rule 605(a) is clear. The rule states the trial court “shall” advise defendants who are found guilty following a trial of certain appeal rights and requirements. 210 Ill. 2d R. 605(a). The term “shall” indicates an intent to impose a mandatory obligation. See Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 182; People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 29 (1998) (interpreting Supreme Court Rule 605(b) to require strict compliance). Thus, under the plain language of Rule 605(a), the trial court is required to give these admonitions in all cases where the defendant is found guilty following a trial. Strict compliance should be required in accordance with the plain language of Rule 605(a). Such a conclusion is further supported by this court’s familiar maxim that “[t]he rules of court we have promulgated are not aspirational. They are not suggestions. They have the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.” Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210 (1995). Thus, strict compliance with the rules of this court is generally required. Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106, 116 (2004). Further, requiring strict compliance with Rule 605(a) would have the benefit of easy application. Given such an interpretation, the failure to comply strictly with the rule would result in a remand to the trial court for proper admonishments. The defendant would then be allowed to seek reconsideration of the sentence and assert any challenge to the sentencing hearing in the trial court as contemplated by Rule 605(a). The defendant’s right to appeal an unfavorable ruling on the motion would be preserved by complying with the Rule 605(a) admonitions concerning filing a notice of appeal. Such an interpretation of Rule 605(a) would simplify matters and eliminate unnecessary litigation on appeal concerning whether a defendant was prejudiced or denied real justice due to inadequate admonishments. In sum, the plain language of Rule 605(a) requires strict compliance. Accordingly, I would find this cause should be remanded to the trial court for proper admonishments and to allow defendant an opportunity to seek reconsideration of his sentence in the trial court. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.