Court Opinion

ID: 9782485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:51:15.948233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:03.257825
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting: In its petition for rehearing, the State appropriately takes issue with the majority’s conclusion that written admonishments alone can never satisfy the requirements of section 113 — 4(e). See 242 Ill. 2d at 199. Indeed, the majority’s categorical rejection of written admonishments is both unnecessary to the disposition of this cause and unsupported by the statutory language, which states only that the court shall “advise” the defendant. Obviously, a court may “advise” a defendant either orally or in writing,2 and section 113 — 4(e) expresses no preference one way or the other. Consequently, there is no statutory basis for the majority’s unilateral elevation of one form over the other. For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in my initial dissent, I would grant the State’s petition for rehearing in this case. JUSTICES CARMAN and KARMEIER join in this dissent.  See, e.g., 720 ILCS 5/12 — 3.2(d) (West Supp. 2009) (“the court shall advise the defendant orally or in writing”); 720 ILCS 5/12— 3.3(c) (West Supp. 2009) (same).