People v. Wallace

Decision Date28 March 1991
Docket NumberNo. 70005,70005
CitationPeople v. Wallace, 570 N.E.2d 334, 143 Ill.2d 59, 155 Ill.Dec. 821 (Ill. 1991)
Parties, 155 Ill.Dec. 821 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. John J. WALLACE, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Daniel M. Kirwan, Deputy Defender, and Janet Gandy Fowler, Asst. Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mount Vernon, for appellant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz, Sol.Gen., and Terence M. Madsen and Kathryn M. Frost, Asst. Attys.Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

Justice HEIPLEdelivered the opinion of the court:

The issue presented in this case is whether a defendant who enters a plea of guilty and objects only to the sentence imposed must file a written motion to reconsider prior to filing a notice of appeal.We conclude that the filing of a motion to reconsider a sentence is a prerequisite to an appeal from that sentence.

Defendant, John Wallace, pleaded guilty to charges of armed robbery, attempted murder and intimidation and was subsequently sentenced.Defendant did not file a written motion to withdraw his guilty plea or a motion to reconsider his sentence.Instead, he filed a notice of appeal, seeking review of his sentence only.The Appellate Court, Fifth District, citing People v. Wilk(1988), 124 Ill.2d 93, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218, dismissed defendant's appeal for failure to file a motion to reconsider.We affirm.

Supreme Court Rule 604(d)(134 Ill.2d R. 604(d)) outlines the procedure for an appeal by a defendant from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty.The rule directs a defendant to file a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and vacate the judgment before an appeal will be taken.Rule 604(d) was effectively broadened by this court's decision in Wilk, which stated, in essence, that if the defendant is complaining only about his sentence, it is sufficient that he file a motion attacking only the sentence prior to appeal.The court stated that a motion to reconsider the sentence gives the trial court the necessary opportunity to review the appropriateness of the sentence imposed and correct any errors made.It is not necessary that a defendant ask for leave to withdraw the guilty plea itself.Wilk, 124 Ill.2d at 110, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the appellate court's dismissal of defendant's appeal.

Affirmed.

CALVO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
54 cases
  • People v. Wendt
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 Septiembre 1996
    ...of Rule 604(d) (145 Ill.2d R. 604(d)), although he is not required to seek withdrawal of the plea. People v. Wallace, 143 Ill.2d 59, 60-61, 155 Ill.Dec. 821, 570 N.E.2d 334 (1991). Thus, to preserve his right to appeal, the defendant must file a motion to reconsider his sentence in the tria......
  • In re J.T.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 2006
    ...failed to issue the Rule 605(b) admonitions regarding Rule 604(d). Consequently, we must determine whether this impacts our holding in Wallace that the appellate court must dismiss the appeal of a post-guilty-plea sentence where the defendant fails to first file a written motion for reconsi......
  • People v. Brasseaux
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 Enero 1996
    ...imposed must, as a prerequisite to appeal from that sentence, file a motion to reconsider sentence. People v. Wallace (1991), 143 Ill.2d 59, 60, 155 Ill.Dec. 821, 570 N.E.2d 334. As an extension of the rule in Wallace, this court has held that any issue not raised in a motion to reconsider ......
  • People v. Bates
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 6 Junio 2001
    ...accordance with the supreme court's interpretation of Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) in People v. Wallace, 143 Ill.2d 59, 155 Ill.Dec. 821, 570 N.E.2d 334 (1991), and People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218 (1988). In Wilk, the supreme court held t......
  • Get Started for Free