Court Opinion

ID: 9406100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 20:05:23.069361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.790157
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                     2023 IL App (4th) 220881-U
This Order was filed under
                                                                                          FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is                                                             June 29, 2023
                                    NOS. 4-22-0881, 4-23-0038 cons.
not precedent except in the                                                              Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed                                                        4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                     IN THE APPELLATE COURT                                Court, IL

                                              OF ILLINOIS

                                          FOURTH DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                         )     Appeal from the
               Plaintiff-Appellee,                               )     Circuit Court of
               v.                                                )     Schuyler County
    SHON D. LEAL,                                                )     Nos. 22CF3
               Defendant-Appellant.                              )           22CF9
                                                                 )
                                                                 )     Honorable
                                                                 )     Jerry J. Hooker,
                                                                       Judge Presiding.

                    JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court.
                    Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

                                                 ORDER

   ¶1       Held: The appellate court remanded for strict compliance with Illinois Supreme Court
                  Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) admonishments.

   ¶2               In September 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant, Shon D. Leal, to five

   years’ imprisonment pursuant to a partially negotiated plea agreement. In exchange for

   defendant’s plea, the State agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at five years. On

   September 30, 2022, defendant filed a pro se “Motion to Rethink Appeal Case.” The court

   neither docketed the matter nor conducted further proceedings. Defendant appeals, arguing the

   court failed to properly admonish him of his appeal rights in substantial compliance with Illinois

   Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). The State disagrees that the court’s

   admonishments were deficient but concedes defendant’s pro se filing should not have been
characterized as a notice of appeal and thus remand is required. We remand for proper

admonishments in accordance with Rule 605(c).

¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶4             On February 1, 2022, in Schuyler County case No. 22-CF-3, defendant was

charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine (count I) (720 ILCS 646/60(a), (b)(1)

(West 2020)) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (count II) (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a)

(West 2020)). On March 23, 2022, defendant, in Schuyler County case No. 22-CF-9, was

charged with one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine (count I) (720 ILCS

646/60(a), (b)(2) (West 2020)), one count of driving without a valid driver’s license (count II)

(625 ILCS 5/6-101 (West 2020)), and one count of illegal transportation of alcohol (count III)

(625 ILCS 5/11-502 (West 2020)).

¶5             On June 1, 2022, the parties informed the trial court they had reached a

“negotiation.” Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to count I in case No. 22-CF-3 and count I in

case No. 22-CF-9. In exchange, the State agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation to five

years in prison and dismiss the remaining counts.

¶6             The trial court held a consolidated sentencing hearing on September 7, 2022. At

the close of evidence, noting defendant’s prior criminal history and the need for deterrence, the

State recommended a sentence of two years’ imprisonment in case No. 22-CF-3 and a three-year

sentence in case No. 22-CF-9, to be served consecutively. In response, defense counsel requested

a sentence of probation, arguing, “the purpose of using [methamphetamine] was to try to be a

more productive and harder working, longer-working individual at his employment, which of

course has landed [defendant] here.” The court, after hearing arguments from the parties and

defendant’s statement in allocution, sentenced defendant to consecutive prison terms of two

                                               -2-
years in case No. 22-CF-3 and three years in case No. 22-CF-9. The court then admonished

defendant of his right to appeal, stating:

                       “[Defendant], you have the right to—you can first file a motion for

               the Court to reconsider. You have to do that within three—or 30 days. It’s

               got to be in writing. You’ve got to tell me all the reasons why you think

               the Court should reconsider its sentence. If I do that, I can only reconsider

               downward. I can’t reconsider or give you more time than I’ve already

               given you because that’s the cap.

                       If you don’t wish to do that, you could ask the Court to—either file

               a written motion asking to vacate this sentence and for leave to get your

               plea of guilty back. You have to put all the reasons in there why you want

               your plea back. If I allowed that, then I would do just that, I would vacate

               everything we did, set these matters for trial. Any charges that the State

               dismissed or reduced, they could reinstate and they would all be set for

               trial. ***

                       If I denied that motion, you’ve got 30 days from that date to file

               your written motion to appeal that decision. In either one of those appeals,

               any claim of error you leave out is going to be waived, you can’t bring it

               up later.”

Defendant indicated he understood the court’s recitation of his appeal rights.

¶7             On September 30, 2022, defendant, pro se, filed a document, entitled “Motion to

Rethink Appeal Case.” Defendant alleged he was unable to review evidence or speak with his

lawyer. Defendant further asserted that “[on] the night in question I did not have any drugs and I

                                               -3-
would like to show you the things that happened or didn’t happen.” The trial court did not

address defendant’s filing, nor did it docket the matter for further proceedings.

¶8             Defendant’s notice of appeal in case No. 22-CF-9 was filed on October 3, 2022.

On January 24, 2023, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal in case No.

22-CF-3, which we granted. Defendant’s appeal in case No. 22-CF-9 was docketed as appellate

court case No. 4-22-0881. Defendant’s appeal in case No. 22-CF-3 was docketed as appellate

court case No. 4-23-0038. In March 2023, this court granted defendant’s motion to consolidate

the appeals.

¶9             This appeal followed.

¶ 10                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11           On appeal, defendant argues the trial court failed to properly admonish him of his

appeal rights under Rule 605(c). In the alternative, defendant argues his pro se motion should

have been resolved during postplea proceedings rather than being construed as a request to file a

notice of appeal.

¶ 12           The State concedes the matter must be remanded for further proceedings based on

the filing of defendant’s pro se motion. However, the State disagrees that the trial court’s

admonishments were deficient. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that defendant was

improperly admonished under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) following

his sentencing, when he should have been admonished pursuant to Rule 605(c).

¶ 13           “[A] negotiated plea is one in which the prosecution has bound itself to

recommend a specific sentence, or a specific range of sentence, or where the prosecution has

made concessions relating to the sentence to be imposed and not merely to the charge or charges

then pending.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). To challenge a sentence after entering a

                                                -4-
negotiated guilty plea, a defendant must first file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea pursuant to

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). See People v. Linder, 186 Ill. 2d 67, 68

(1999). Specifically, Rule 604(d) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

               “No appeal shall be taken upon a negotiated plea of guilty challenging the

               sentence as excessive unless the defendant, within 30 days of the

               imposition of sentence, files a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and

               vacate the judgment. For purposes of this rule, a negotiated plea of guilty

               is one in which the prosecution has bound itself to recommend a specific

               sentence, or a specific range of sentence, or where the prosecution has

               made concessions relating to the sentence to be imposed and not merely to

               the charge or charges then pending.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1,

               2017).

“Rule 605(b) and Rule 605(c), which complement Rule 604(d) and serve as a corollary to the

requirements of Rule 604(d), provide the admonitions the trial judge must give a defendant when

imposing sentence on a defendant who has pled guilty.” People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336,

¶ 13.

¶ 14           When a defendant enters a negotiated plea of guilty, a trial judge must give the

admonishments included in Rule 605(c). People v. Perry, 2014 IL App (1st) 122584, ¶ 15. Rule

605(c) provides, “prior to taking an appeal the defendant must file in the trial court, within 30

days of the date on which sentence is imposed, a written motion asking to have the judgment

vacated and for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, setting forth the grounds for the motion.” Ill.

S. Ct. R. 605(c)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). Conversely, a defendant who enters an open or blind plea

of guilty and subsequently wishes to appeal his sentence must first file a motion seeking

                                                -5-
reconsideration of his sentence or vacatur of the judgment and leave to withdraw his guilty plea.

See Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(b) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001).

¶ 15            Rule 605(c) must be strictly complied with “in that the admonitions must be

given.” (Emphasis in original.) Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 21. However, the rule “need not

be read nearly verbatim.” Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 22. “Rather, *** the court must

‘substantially’ advise a defendant under Rule 605(c) in such a way that the defendant is properly

informed, or put on notice, of what he must do in order to preserve his right to appeal his guilty

plea or sentence.” Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 22. “So long as the court’s admonitions were

sufficient to impart to a defendant the essence or substance of the rule, the court has substantially

complied with the rule.” Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 22. “A trial court’s compliance with the

admonition requirements of Supreme Court Rule 605 is reviewed de novo.” People v. Young,

387 Ill. App. 3d 1126, 1127 (2009).

¶ 16            In Young, the defendant pleaded guilty to a drug offense, and in exchange, the

State agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at 12 years’ imprisonment. Young, 387 Ill.

App. 3d at 1127. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 years in prison and admonished

the defendant that in order to appeal, he would need to file “a written motion asking [the court]

to reconsider [his] sentence or to have judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw [his] plea of

guilty.” Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 1127. Subsequently, the defendant filed an incorrect motion,

which was denied by the trial court. Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 1127. Because the trial court

incorrectly admonished the defendant in strict compliance with Rule 605(b) and not Rule 605(c),

this court remanded the case so the trial court could strictly comply with Rule 605 and properly

provide the correct negotiated plea admonishments. Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 1129.

                                                 -6-
¶ 17           Here, defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for the State’s agreement to cap its

sentencing recommendation to five years’ imprisonment. As a result, defendant was required to

file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea within the applicable 30-day period, as opposed to a

motion to reconsider the sentence. The trial court, pursuant to Rule 605(c), was required to

admonish defendant he must file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in conjunction with any

challenge to his sentence. As in Young, the court incorrectly admonished defendant in strict

compliance with Rule 605(b), not Rule 605(c). As a result, defendant filed an incorrect

postsentencing motion. When a trial court fails to properly admonish a defendant pursuant to

Rule 605 following a guilty plea, the correct remedy is to remand for proper Rule 605

admonishments and the filing of new postsentencing motions under Rule 604(d). Young, 387 Ill.

App. 3d at 1129.

¶ 18                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19           For the reasons stated, we remand the cause for further proceedings consistent

with this order.

¶ 20           Remanded.

                                               -7-