Court Opinion

ID: 9709139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:41:05.77932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:46.317408
License: Public Domain

KASSERMAN, J., dissenting: I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that the defendant was under an obligation to present to the trial court his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty under Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (87 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)); therefore, I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly notes that under Supreme Court Rule 604(d), the defendant is required to “file” a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty; however, Rule 604(d) provides in pertinent part as follows: “No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. *** The motion shall be presented promptly to the trial judge by whom the defendant was sentenced, ***. The trial court shall then determine whether the defendant is represented by counsel and if the defendant is indigent and desires counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel. *** The motion shall be heard promptly, ***.” (87 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).) Nothing contained in the rule requires that defendant present his motion to the trial court. In fact, the defendant may well be imprisoned and consequently unable to present the motion to the court for hearing. All of the cases relied on by the majority are inapposite for the reason that they are cases in which a defendant is attempting to gain an advantage on appeal from the trial court’s failure to dispose of a motion which had been filed by the defendant. However, such is not the case in the instant appeal, because had defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea been allowed, he would have obtained the relief requested and, conversely, had such motion been denied, this court would now be in a position to rule on the merits of his appeal. Thus, it is the prosecution, and not the defense, that is attempting to gain advantage from the trial court’s failure to dispose of defendant’s motion. The defendant has done all that is required of him under Supreme Court Rule 604(d), and he should not be prejudiced by the fact that his motion has not been entertained. Otherwise, the intent and purpose of Rule 604(d) could be circumvented by the trial court’s imprisonment of a defendant after intentionally failing to rule on defendant’s timely motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. For the reasons stated, I would reverse the decision of the circuit court of St. Clair County and remand this cause for a hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.