Court Opinion

ID: 9819412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:24:56.104962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:20.253894
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting: The majority holds that the failure of the circuit court of Will County to give defendant the admonishments mandated by Supreme Court Rule 605(a) does not require remand. Because I disagree with that conclusion, I respectfully dissent. I believe the reliance of the State and the majority on People v. Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d 509, 821 N.E.2d 1176 (2004), is misplaced. The issue in Breedlove was whether constitutional mandates of due process and equal protection and concepts of fundamental fairness obligated remand so that defendant could be admonished in accord with an amendment to the rule which had been adopted but which was not effective at the time he was admonished. That is not the issue here. This defendant was admonished after the amendment became effective. Effective October 17, 2001, the supreme court added the requirement that Rule 605(a) admonishments should include the statement: “C. that any issue or claim of error regarding the sentence imposed or any aspect of the sentencing hearing not raised in the written motion [required in Rule 605(a)(3)(B)] shall be deemed waived.” 210 Ill. 2d R. 605(a)(3)(C). Presumably, one purpose of this rule is to ensure that defendants actually raise issues and claims if they have some that fall within the rule and, by way of bonus, to keep us from having to guess whether such issues were not raised because defendant did not have any or because he was not told that he must. The rule also keeps defendant from having to hope that he will be assigned to a panel that determines that his unraised issues fall within the slim confines of the plain error doctrine. There is no issue here of constitutional rights or fundamental fairness; there is only a mandatory rule. People v. Glenn, 345 Ill. App. 3d 974, 804 N.E.2d 661 (2004); People v. Bagnell, 348 Ill. App. 3d 322, 809 N.E.2d 753 (2004). It seems clear to me that the case must be remanded for new admonishments.