People v. Dunn
Decision Date | 27 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 1-01-4253.,1-01-4253. |
Citation | 795 N.E.2d 799,342 Ill. App.3d 872,277 Ill.Dec. 131 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darzell DUNN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael J. Pelletier, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago (Jeffery A. Waldhoff, of counsel), for Appellant.
Richard A. Devine, Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Margaret J. Campos and Patrick J. Keane, of counsel), for Appellee.
MODIFIED OPINION UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING
On April 2, 2001, defendant Darzell Dunn pled guilty to one count of residential burglary and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment based on his criminal history, which included 10 prior convictions. On appeal, defendant contends that he did not enter a negotiated guilty plea and, therefore, should have been admonished under Supreme Court Rule 605(b), which governs non-negotiated guilty pleas (188 Ill.2d R. 605(b)). Defendant seeks remand to the circuit court for compliance with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 605(b).
A conference pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402 was held on January 25, 2001. Before the conference took place, the trial court stated the following to defendant:
Following the conference, defendant indicated that he wished to set the case for a jury trial, and the trial court assigned April 2, 2001, as the trial date.
On April 2, 2001, defendant indicated that he wished to plead guilty. At that time, the following discussion occurred:
The State then recited the stipulated factual basis. Defendant was caught taking property from the victim's home. The victim, along with a neighbor, detained defendant until the police arrived. The trial court accepted defendant's jury waiver and guilty plea, finding that the plea was voluntary and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The trial court then found defendant guilty and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment. The trial court then admonished defendant:
Defendant filed a late notice of appeal which incorporated the motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate judgment. This late notice of appeal was denied on June 22, 2001. A revised late notice of appeal was later allowed by this court.
Supreme Court Rule 604(d) provides the requirements a defendant must satisfy when appealing from a judgment entered on a plea of guilty. 188 Ill.2d R. 604(d). Rule 604(d) states in relevant part:
188 Ill.2d R. 604(d).
Rule 604(d) provides that a defendant who entered a guilty plea, whether open or negotiated, must file a written postplea motion with the trial court when appealing from a judgment entered on a plea of guilty. 188 Ill.2d R. 604(d). Absent defendant's compliance with the required written postplea motion, this court cannot consider defendant's appeal. People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93, 105, 124 Ill.Dec. 398,529 N.E.2d 218 (1988). In Wilk, our supreme court held that the requirement that defendant file a written post-sentencing motion is not a suggestion but, rather, mandatory. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d at 103,124 Ill.Dec. 398,529 N.E.2d 218. A written postsentencing motion is a "condition precedent" to appeal. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d at 107,124 Ill.Dec. 398,529 N.E.2d 218.
We note that a number of appellate court opinions have interpreted the "condition precedent" language as finding the filing of a Rule 604(d) motion to be a jurisdictional requirement. See People v. Clark, 276 Ill.App.3d 1002, 1005, 213 Ill.Dec. 505, 659 N.E.2d 421 (1995); People v. Castillo, 243 Ill.App.3d 818, 820-21, 183 Ill.Dec. 881, 612 N.E.2d 533 (1993). However, other appellate court opinions reject finding the filing of a Rule 604(d) motion to be a jurisdictional requirement but, rather, indicate that failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion can result in the waiver of a defendant's right to appeal. See e.g., People v. Cochrane, 257 Ill.App.3d 1047, 1050, 196 Ill.Dec. 551, 630 N.E.2d 486 (1994)
; People v. Young, 250 Ill.App.3d 55, 63, 189 Ill.Dec. 150, 619 N.E.2d 851 (1993).
In People v. McKay, 282 Ill.App.3d 108, 218 Ill.Dec. 96, 668 N.E.2d 580 (1996), the court held that failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion results in waiver of a defendant's right to appeal. In its analysis, the McKay court noted as follows:
McKay, 282 Ill.App.3d at 111, 218 Ill.Dec. 96, 668 N.E.2d 580.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently resolved this split of authority in In re William M., No.93760, 206 Ill.2d 595, 276 Ill.Dec. 916, 795 N.E.2d 269, 2003 WL 21404572 (June 19, 2003), finding that the court in McKay was correct. The supreme court indicated that the failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion does not deprive the court of jurisdiction, but can result in the waiver of a defendant's right to appeal. William M., slip op. at 4, 206 Ill.2d at 600-601, 276 Ill.Dec. 916, 795 N.E.2d 269, 2003 WL 21404572.
A defendant's failure to satisfy the written postplea motion requirements of Rule 604(d) can result in the loss of the right to direct appeal. In the context of negotiated pleas of guilty, we note that Rule 605(c) is a necessary corollary to Rule 604(d) because Rule 605(c) mandates the trial judge to admonish defendant regarding the requirements of Rule 604(d). Here, defendant failed to file a timely Rule 604(d) motion; however, exceptions to the written motion requirements of Rule 604(d) have been recognized. People v. Foster, 171 Ill.2d 469, 473, 216 Ill.Dec. 565, 665 N.E.2d 823 (1996); William M., slip op. at 6, 206 Ill.2d at 602-603, 276 Ill.Dec. 916, 795 N.E.2d 269, 2003 WL 21404572. The exception to noncompliance with the postplea motion requirements of Rule 604(d) occurs where the trial court failed to properly admonish defendant. Foster, 171 Ill.2d at 473,216 Ill.Dec. 565,665 N.E.2d 823. In Foster, our supreme court recognized that strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tlatenchi
...into a negotiated guilty plea, the trial court was required to admonish her pursuant to Rule 605(c). People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App.3d 872, 881, 277 Ill.Dec. 131, 795 N.E.2d 799 (2003). That rule requires the court to provide the following "(1) that the defendant has a right to appeal; (2) th......
-
People v. Johnson
...such defendants must withdraw their guilty plea if they wish to challenge with their sentence); People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d 872, 881, 277 Ill.Dec. 131, 795 N.E.2d 799, 806–07 (2003) (First District, indicating a defendant must withdraw his guilty plea to challenge his sentence imposed ......
-
People v. Dominguez
...was necessary if he wished to appeal.” J.T., 221 Ill.2d at 347–48, 303 Ill.Dec. 103, 851 N.E.2d 1. ¶ 50 In People v. Dunn, 342 Ill.App.3d 872, 277 Ill.Dec. 131, 795 N.E.2d 799 (2003), the circuit court admonished the defendant under Rule 605(c): “Any reasons not set forth in your motion wil......
-
People v. Smith
...has found that the defendant's guilty plea resulted from a plea agreement negotiated with the State. In People v. Dunn, 342 Ill.App.3d 872, 277 Ill.Dec. 131, 795 N.E.2d 799 (2003), a negotiated guilty plea was found where the parties participated in a pretrial conference with the trial cour......