In re J.T.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 98492.,98492. |
| Citation | 851 N.E.2d 1,221 Ill.2d 338 |
| Parties | In re J.T., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. J.T., Appellee). |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Springfield, Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, Chicago (Linda D. Woloshin, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, Renee G. Goldfarb, Alan J. Spellberg, Kathleen Warnick and James E. Fitzgerald, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, Heidi Linn Lambros, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for appellee.
The respondent, J.T., admitted having committed the offense of criminal damage to property and was sentenced to 18 months' probation. His probation was subsequently revoked and he was committed to the Illinois Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division (DOC), for an indeterminate term. On appeal, J.T. argued, inter alia, that the circuit court of Cook County had failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 605 (188 Ill.2d R. 605) when it sentenced him to probation. The appellate court agreed and remanded the cause to the trial court for proper admonitions. The State, as appellant, argues that the appellate court was without jurisdiction to hear any issue regarding J.T.'s guilty plea and sentence. We agree and vacate the judgment of the appellate court.
On August 6, 2001, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship against J.T., alleging that J.T. had committed the offense of criminal damage to property. Following a conference pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402 (177 Ill.2d R. 402), J.T. agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of probation. After admonishing J.T. of the consequences of pleading guilty, the trial court accepted the plea, entered a finding of delinquency, and continued the case for sentencing.
On January 11, 2002, J.T. was sentenced to 18 months' probation. The conditions of his probation included making restitution attending TASC counseling, and attending school on a regular basis. The trial court then admonished J.T. about his right to appeal:
"THE COURT: So also you have the right to appeal. If within the next thirty days — this starts the thirty-day period of grace between us — if within the next thirty days you become unhappy with the penalty I have imposed on you, you have the right to appeal to a higher court, to the appellate court, the court that supervises me.
If you want to go up to that court, there is a procedure you have to follow. You first have to file a petition before me asking me to allow you to withdraw your admission. You file a petition saying you want to take everything back.
If I agree with your petition, I will strike out this penalty. I will strike out the fact that you entered the plea of guilty. I will strike out the finding of guilty and you will have to start all over by going to trial before me. That's the second chance that the law provides; but if I disagree with your petition and say, no, everything was done well. This is what we are supposed to leave it that way. Then it will go up to the higher court and they will look at everything.
They will take this record this lady is typing up or transcribing and they will read everything that was said in the courtroom by the attorneys, by you, by me, to see whether or not your rights were violated in any way.
Do you understand that?
J.T. filed neither a motion to withdraw his guilty plea nor a notice of appeal.
On March 27, 2002, the State filed a petition for supplemental relief alleging that J.T. had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to attend school on numerous occasions, and that he had committed several other substantive offenses. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that J.T. had violated his probation by failing to attend school on nine separate occasions. A dispositional hearing was held on December 13, 2002. Kevin Morgan, J.T.'s probation officer, testified that J.T. was not enrolled in school, had not paid the restitution, and had missed many of his TASC evaluation appointments. Morgan further testified that J.T. was not a candidate for intensive probation services because of his lack of cooperation. The trial court found that given J.T.'s history of delinquency, his parents' unwillingness to cooperate and their inability to control him, and his repeated failure to cooperate, it was in the community's best interest that it be protected from J.T.'s criminal behavior and that he be committed to the DOC.
On appeal, J.T. argued, inter alia, that when the trial court sentenced him to probation, it failed to properly admonish him in accordance with Rule 605(b) (188 Ill.2d R. 605(b)), and that the cause should be remanded so that he could file a motion to withdraw his admission and receive proper admonishments. J.T. acknowledged that he did not file a written motion to withdraw his plea or a notice of appeal, but argued that because juveniles have no right to postconviction relief, the appellate court should consider the merits of his claims in the interest of fairness.
The State filed a motion to strike this argument, arguing that because J.T. did not file a timely notice of appeal, the appellate court was without jurisdiction to hear any issues relating to J.T.'s guilty plea. Following its previous decision in People v. Johnson, 332 Ill.App.3d 81, 265 Ill.Dec. 793, 773 N.E.2d 155 (2002), the appellate court held that where the trial court has failed to give proper admonitions, the judgment may be attacked at any time.
After noting that Rule 605(c) rather than Rule 605(b) applied because J.T. was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea, the appellate court found that the admonishments given by the trial court failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 605(c). Specifically, the court found that the trial court failed to advise J.T. that: (1) he could have an attorney assist him in the preparation of postplea motions; (2) he was required to set forth the grounds for the withdrawal of admission to the petition in the motion to withdraw; and (3) he waived any grounds he did not raise in the motion; and (4) the State could reinstate any charges against him that were dismissed as part of the plea negotiations.
Based on this finding and following its previous decision in People v. Johnson, 332 Ill.App.3d 81, 265 Ill.Dec. 793, 773 N.E.2d 155 (2002), the appellate court remanded the cause to the circuit court so that J.T. could be properly admonished in accordance with Rule 605(c), and given the opportunity to file a motion to withdraw his admission to the petition under Rule 604(d). 347 Ill.App.3d 533, 283 Ill.Dec. 466, 808 N.E.2d 16. We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal (177 Ill.2d R. 315), and J.T. cross-appeals.
J.T. now concedes that the appellate court's rationale for holding that a defendant may attack the judgment at any time when the trial court has failed to give proper admonitions was rejected in People v. Jones, 213 Ill.2d 498, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093 (2004), which overruled Johnson to the extent that it was inconsistent therewith on this issue.
In Jones, the defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to murder and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. His pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was summarily dismissed. On appeal from the dismissal, the defendant argued for the first time that the trial court had failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Rule 605 when it entered judgment on his guilty plea. The appellate court held that the defendant could not raise the issue of improper admonitions on appeal because he had failed to raise it in his petition. On appeal to this court, the defendant conceded that he had not included this issue in his petition, but argued, inter alia, that because the improper admonitions were akin to a void judgment, it could be raised at any time. We rejected this argument, holding that while the giving of improper admonitions constitutes error, it does not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction such that the conviction and sentence were rendered void. Jones, 213 Ill.2d at 509, 290 Ill.Dec. 519, 821 N.E.2d 1093, citing People v. Davis, 156 Ill.2d 149, 156, 189 Ill.Dec. 49, 619 N.E.2d 750 (1993).
While the appellate court's determination in this case that a conviction and sentence entered in the absence of proper Rule 605(b) admonitions can be attacked at any time because it is akin to a void judgment is clearly incorrect under Jones, it suffers from a more fundamental flaw — the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the admonishment issue. In noncapital cases an appeal is perfected by the timely filing of a notice of appeal, and it is this step which vests the appellate court with jurisdiction. 188 Ill.2d R. 606(a). Except as provided in Rule 604(d), the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a motion directed against the judgment is timely filed, within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of that motion. 188 Ill.2d R. 605(b). Rule 604(d) requires that in order to appeal from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores
...unreasonable—at least not in all cases, which is all that is necessary to defeat a facial challenge. ¶ 64 It was observed in In re J.T., 221 Ill.2d 338, 303 Ill.Dec. 103, 851 N.E.2d 1 (2006), that “[j]uveniles are a vulnerable [372 Ill.Dec. 272] [991 N.E.2d 762]population” and “ ‘[o]ur hist......
-
People v. Marcus S. (In re Marcus S.)
...this appeal is moot. Robert S. , 213 Ill. 2d at 45, 289 Ill.Dec. 648, 820 N.E.2d 424 ; see also In re J.T. , 221 Ill. 2d 338, 349-50, 303 Ill.Dec. 103, 851 N.E.2d 1 (2006) (an appeal is moot where it presents no actual controversy or where the issues raised in the trial court no longer exis......
-
Dotty's Cafe v. Ill. Gaming Bd.
...2017 IL 120133, ¶ 17, 422 Ill.Dec. 746, 104 N.E.3d 313 ) or where there is no longer an active controversy ( In re J.T. , 221 Ill. 2d 338, 349, 303 Ill.Dec. 103, 851 N.E.2d 1 (2006) ). In other words, "[m]ootness occurs once the plaintiff has secured what he basically sought and a resolutio......
-
People v. Orahim, 2-17-0257
...timely filing of a notice of appeal, and it is this step which vests the appellate court with jurisdiction." In re J.T. , 221 Ill. 2d 338, 346, 303 Ill.Dec. 103, 851 N.E.2d 1 (2006). Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(b) (eff. July 1, 2017), a notice of appeal is timely if it is filed "w......