Court Opinion

ID: 9949476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 19:04:47.947647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:27.126139
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 231854-U
                                            No. 1-23-1854
                                     Order filed March 11, 2024
                                                                                       First Division

 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).
 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                               IN THE
                                  APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                          FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                           )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                  )   Cook County.
                                                                )
     v.                                                         )   No. 21 CR 12250
                                                                )
 ANTWOINE SMITH,                                                )   Honorable
                                                                )   Steven Jay Rosenblum,
           Defendant-Appellant.                                 )   Judge, presiding.

           JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court.
           Justices Lavin and Coghlan concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1        Held: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where defendant filed a notice of appeal
                that was procedurally barred as to his 2022 guilty plea and attempted to challenge
                a subsequent court ruling that was not a final and appealable order.

¶2        On October 6, 2023, defendant Antwoine Smith filed a pro se notice of appeal asking this

court to reverse the trial court’s judgments entered April 14, 2022, and September 14, 2023. We

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because defendant’s attempt to challenge his guilty plea

entered April 14, 2022, is procedurally barred where he did not file a timely motion to withdraw
No. 1-23-1854

his guilty plea as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). In addition,

the trial court’s ruling on September 14, 2023, was not a final and appealable order.

¶3      Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated domestic battery and one count of

aggravated battery for grabbing his girlfriend, the mother of his two children, by the neck and

pushing her face into the steering wheel of the vehicle in which they were seated.

¶4      On April 14, 2022, defendant entered a fully negotiated guilty plea to an amended charge

of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2020)) in exchange for

a sentence of 18 months’ probation. Defendant was ordered to complete counseling for domestic

violence and anger management and required to comply with an order of protection. Defendant

was also ordered to pay $454 in court costs, fines, and fees, and additional probation fees to the

Adult Probation Department. The trial court advised defendant of his appeal rights, including the

requirement to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea within 30 days before he could appeal.

¶5      There is no indication in the record that defendant ever filed a motion to withdraw his guilty

plea.

¶6      On July 18 and August 15, 2023, defendant filed two nearly identical pro se “notices” with

the clerk of the circuit court of Cook County, Iris Martinez. Both documents were entitled “Notice

Of Express Trust, Suretyship, Subrogation, & Interest.” Defendant stated that at the time of his

plea agreement, he was “a ward of the state” under the direction of his trial counsel and was

unaware that he was the “implied surety” for the agreement. Defendant told Martinez that as

“Surety,” he was “tendering a Special Deposit for the sum of all charges and appointing you as

trustee.” The majority of defendant’s notices are nonsensical but appear to be instructing Martinez

to take financial action regarding the costs and fees he was assessed as part of his plea agreement.

                                                -2-
No. 1-23-1854

¶7      On September 14, 2023, defendant appeared in court. An unnamed probation officer told

the court that the State was seeking leave to file a petition for violation of probation because

defendant never paid the $454 he owed in court costs and fees, nor the $900 he owed in probation

fees. Defendant had complied with all the other conditions of his probation. The trial court inquired

whether defendant had the resources to pay the fees. Defendant was evasive with his answers but

stated he was “working” and made “a pretty reasonable amount.” The court found defendant had

the resources to pay but had chosen not to do so.

¶8      Defendant claimed he paid the amounts owed when he “tendered a special deposit to the

courts” and Martinez. He presented copies of the two notices he had sent to Martinez as his

“receipts” of his “special deposit.”

¶9      The court told defendant that he could either pay his court costs and probation fees, or it

would “sign” the violation of probation.1 Defendant stated he could make the payment that day.

The court allowed defendant to go to the clerk’s office to make the payment and return to the

courtroom.

¶ 10    When the case was recalled, defendant informed the court that he had made a $50 payment

and could not pay the full amount that day. Defendant stated that the clerk’s office advised him

that he had to pay the full balance due by October 13, 2023, and that he would do so. The court

told defendant to ensure that he paid the full balance due for his court costs and fees by October

13. The court stated that defendant could arrange payment for his probation fees with the probation

department. The court continued the case to October 12, 2023, for payment of the court costs.

        1
           The court granted the State leave to file the violation of probation, but the record does not
reflect that one was filed.

                                                     -3-
No. 1-23-1854

¶ 11   On October 6, 2023, defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal indicating he was appealing

the judgments entered on April 14, 2022, and September 14, 2023. The Office of the State

Appellate Defender was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. On November 21, 2023, this

court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw which indicated that defendant wanted to

represent himself on appeal.

¶ 12   On appeal, defendant filed a pro se brief that he characterized as a “Bill in Equity” against

Martinez. Defendant states that he is filing a complaint against Martinez because she “is in breach

of trust” and “has ignored her fiduciary duties.” Defendant refers to his plea agreement and states

that he wants to stop the State “from executing the power within their presumed security interests

to collect, prosecute, and/or arrest my Person/property.”

¶ 13   The State notified this court that it elected not to file an appellee’s brief in this case.

¶ 14   Initially, we observe that defendant has failed to comply with the requirements for appellate

briefs delineated in Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Most notably, defendant has

failed to provide this court with a clear issue for review, a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of

facts, a cohesive legal argument, or citation to any legal authority. Defendant’s appeal could be

dismissed on this basis alone. Ittersagen v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 2021 IL 126507,

¶¶ 36-37.

¶ 15   In addition, we note that defendant attached several documents to his brief that are not

included in the record on appeal. We are precluded from considering the information contained in

these documents as they are not properly before this court and cannot be used to supplement the

record. People v. Garcia, 2017 IL App (1st) 133398, ¶ 35.

                                                 -4-
No. 1-23-1854

¶ 16   This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal challenging defendant’s guilty

plea entered April 14, 2022. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), before a

defendant may appeal a judgment entered upon a negotiated guilty plea, the defendant must first

file a written motion to withdraw the guilty plea with the trial court within 30 days of the date the

court imposed sentence. People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 300 (2003). Filing of a Rule 604(d)

motion is a “condition precedent to an appeal from a judgment on a plea of guilty.” Id. at 300-01.

However, a defendant may be excused from failing to comply with Rule 604(d) if a trial court did

not give proper admonishments under Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) regarding

the steps necessary to preserve the right to appeal following a negotiated guilty plea. People v.

Merriweather, 2013 IL App (1st) 113789, ¶ 17.

¶ 17   Here, defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea within 30 days of the date

the trial court imposed its sentence. The record shows that the trial court complied with Rule 605(c)

as it properly admonished defendant of his right to appeal and the requirement to file a written

motion to withdraw his plea within 30 days. Consequently, defendant’s failure to file a postplea

motion as required by Rule 604(d) is not excused. We, therefore, do not have authority to consider

the merits of defendant’s appeal challenging his guilty plea and must dismiss the appeal as to that

judgment. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301-02.

¶ 18    Nor does this court have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the September 14, 2023,

court date as the trial court did not enter a final order on that date. The appellate court does not

have jurisdiction to review a judgment, order, or decree that is not final. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,

§ 6; People v. Kotlarchik, 2022 IL App (2d) 200358, ¶ 7. Here, the record shows that on September

14, the trial court considered allowing the State to file a violation of probation against defendant.

                                                -5-
No. 1-23-1854

However, defendant then made a $50 payment and stated that he would pay the full amount due

for his court costs and fees by October 13. The trial court continued the case to October 12 for

defendant to pay his balance due. Hence, there was no final judgment for defendant to appeal. In

fact, there was no judgment at all.

¶ 19   For these reasons, we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of

defendant’s appeal and must dismiss the appeal.

¶ 20   Appeal dismissed.

                                              -6-