People v. Skryd ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                        Docket No. 110498.
    IN THE
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. ANITA
    ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. DAVID SKRYD, Respondent.
    Opinion filed February 3, 2011.
    JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with
    opinion.
    Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Thomas, Garman, Karmeier,
    Burke, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
    OPINION
    Petitioner, Anita Alvarez, State’s Attorney of Cook County, seeks
    a writ of mandamus or prohibition against respondent, the Honorable
    David Skryd, judge of the circuit court of Cook County. See Ill.
    Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(a). Respondent granted the motion of
    defendant, Efrain Loza, to withdraw defendant’s approximately 12-
    year-old guilty plea and vacate his misdemeanor conviction. The State
    requests an order compelling respondent to rescind his order and
    dismiss defendant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. We award the
    State a writ of mandamus.
    I. BACKGROUND
    At the outset we make two observations. First, in an original
    action to review a judicial act, the judge is only a nominal party in the
    proceeding. Counsel for the prevailing party below may file papers for
    that party, but shall not file any paper in the name of the judge. Ill. S.
    Ct. R. 381(c) (eff. Dec. 29, 2009). Second, our recitation of the
    undisputed facts is taken from limited sources for a limited purpose.
    In an original mandamus proceeding: “Only issues of law will be
    considered. The proposed complaint shall be sworn to and shall
    contain or have attached to it the lower court records or other
    pertinent material that will fully present the issues of law.” Ill. S. Ct.
    R. 381(a) (eff. Dec. 29, 2009). Here, the parties have attached to their
    pleadings only those portions of the record in support of their
    respective legal arguments.
    On May 21, 1998, defendant entered into a negotiated plea of
    guilty to one count of misdemeanor possession of cannabis (720 ILCS
    550/4(c) (West 1998)) in exchange for two days in the Cook County
    jail, time considered served. The circuit court held a hearing on
    defendant’s guilty plea (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 402 (eff. July 1, 1997)),
    which is memorialized, in full, as follows:
    “CLERK: Efrain Loza.
    [Defense Counsel]: *** We would accept the State’s offer
    time considered served and tender a jury waiver.
    COURT: Is that what you are agreeing to, two days
    House of Corrections, time considered served?
    Defendant: Yes.
    COURT: You are giving up right to a jury, right to insist
    the State prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you
    aware you are giving up those rights?
    Defendant: Yes.
    COURT: Still pleading guilty?
    Defendant: Yes.
    COURT: That is the order.”
    These were the court’s only admonishments to defendant.
    On April 7, 2010, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty
    plea and vacate his conviction. Defendant alleged that at the time of
    -2-
    his conviction, he was a Mexican citizen, but a lawful permanent
    resident in the United States. However, as a result of defendant’s
    conviction, his “petition for citizenship is being denied and he is
    subject to removal.” Defendant contended that he was entitled to
    withdraw his guilty plea because at the hearing on the plea the circuit
    court failed to admonish him of his appeal rights as required by
    Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992)).1
    At a hearing on the motion to withdraw, the State argued that the
    motion, filed nearly 12 years after the guilty plea, should be dismissed
    as untimely. Without explanation, respondent granted defendant’s
    motion.
    The State filed a motion to reconsider, in which it contended that
    the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s motion to
    withdraw because it was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the
    guilty plea, as required by Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (Ill. S. Ct. R.
    604(d) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992)). At the close of a hearing, again without
    explanation, respondent denied the State’s motion to reconsider.
    The State filed a motion with this court for leave to file a
    complaint seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition against
    respondent. Ill. S. Ct. R. 381(a) (eff. Dec. 29, 2009). We allowed the
    State’s motion for leave to file the complaint.
    II. ANALYSIS
    Before this court, the State contends that respondent lacked
    jurisdiction over defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
    vacate his conviction because defendant filed his motion beyond 30
    days–indeed, nearly 12 years–after his guilty plea. Defendant counters
    that respondent was not divested of jurisdiction because defendant
    was not admonished regarding his appeal rights.
    Article VI, section 4(a), of the Illinois Constitution confers upon
    1
    Citing section 113–8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725
    ILCS 5/113–8 (West 2008)), defendant also assigned error to the circuit
    court’s failure to advise defendant of the immigration consequences of the
    conviction. Defendant correctly does not pursue this assignment of error
    before this court because this statutory admonishment was not enacted until
    2003, effective January 2004.
    -3-
    this court discretionary original jurisdiction to hear mandamus cases.
    Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(a). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy
    used to compel a public official to perform a purely ministerial duty
    where no exercise of discretion is involved. People ex rel. Birkett v.
    Konetski, 
    233 Ill. 2d 185
    , 192-93 (2009). The issue presented in this
    case is not whether respondent’s order was discretionary or
    ministerial, but whether respondent lacked the power to enter the
    order. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to correct an order
    entered by a court that erroneously assumed jurisdiction which the
    court did not possess (People ex rel. Bradley v. McAuliffe, 
    24 Ill. 2d 75
    , 78 (1962) (collecting cases)) or to expunge a void order entered
    by a tribunal without jurisdiction (Daley v. Laurie, 
    106 Ill. 2d 33
    , 40
    (1985); People ex rel. Carey v. White, 
    65 Ill. 2d 193
    , 197 (1976);
    People ex rel. Courtney v. Prystalski, 
    358 Ill. 198
    , 201-02 (1934)).2
    A writ of mandamus will be awarded only if the petitioner establishes
    a clear right to the relief requested, a clear duty of the public official
    to act, and clear authority in the public official to comply with the
    writ. Although mandamus generally provides affirmative rather than
    prohibitory relief, the writ can be used to compel the undoing of an
    act. 
    Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d at 193
    (collecting cases).
    Supreme Court Rule 604(d) provides in pertinent part: “No appeal
    from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the
    defendant, within 30 days of the date on which the sentence is
    imposed, files in the trial court ***, if the plea is being challenged, a
    motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.” Ill.
    S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992). This court has repeatedly
    observed that our rules are not mere suggestions. Rather, they have
    the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed
    and enforced as written. People v. Houston, 
    226 Ill. 2d 135
    , 152
    (2007); People v. Campbell, 
    224 Ill. 2d 80
    , 87 (2006).
    2
    Similarly, a writ of prohibition may be used to prevent a judge from
    acting where he or she has no jurisdiction to act, or to prevent a judicial act
    which is beyond the scope of a judge’s legitimate jurisdictional authority. See
    People ex rel. Devine v. Stralka, 
    226 Ill. 2d 445
    , 449-50 (2007) (and cases
    cited therein).
    -4-
    The purpose of Rule 604(d)
    “is to ensure that before a criminal appeal can be taken from
    a guilty plea, the trial judge who accepted the plea and
    imposed sentence be given the opportunity to hear the
    allegations of improprieties that took place outside the official
    proceedings and dehors the record, but nevertheless were
    unwittingly given sanction in the courtroom. Rule 604(d)
    provides for fact finding to take place at a time when
    witnesses are still available and memories are fresh. [Citation.]
    A hearing under Rule 604(d) allows a trial court to
    immediately correct any improper conduct or any errors of the
    trial court that may have produced a guilty plea.” People v.
    Wilk, 
    124 Ill. 2d 93
    , 104 (1988).
    The rule was designed to eliminate needless trips to the appellate
    court and to give the circuit court an opportunity to consider the
    alleged errors and to make a record for the appellate court to consider
    on review in cases where a defendant’s claim is disallowed. 
    Id. at 106.
    Accordingly: “Rule 604(d) establishes a condition precedent for an
    appeal from a defendant’s plea of guilty.” 
    Id. at 105.
    As a general rule,
    the failure to file a timely Rule 604(d) motion precludes the appellate
    court from considering the appeal on the merits. Where a defendant
    has failed to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the appellate
    court must dismiss the appeal. People v. Flowers, 
    208 Ill. 2d 291
    , 301
    (2003) (collecting cases).
    In addressing appeals from judgments entered upon guilty pleas,
    Rule 604(d) has ramifications not only for the appellate court, but for
    circuit courts as well. Article VI, section 9, of the Illinois Constitution
    confers upon circuit courts jurisdiction over all justiciable matters. Ill.
    Const. 1970, art. VI, §9. “As applied in the context of criminal
    proceedings, the term ‘subject matter’ jurisdiction means the power
    to hear and determine a given case.” People v. Davis, 
    156 Ill. 2d 149
    ,
    156 (1993). However, once cases are heard and determined, “[t]he
    jurisdiction of trial courts to reconsider and modify their judgments is
    not indefinite.” 
    Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 303
    . Generally, a circuit court
    loses jurisdiction to vacate or modify its judgment 30 days after entry
    of judgment. Beck v. Stepp, 
    144 Ill. 2d 232
    , 238 (1991); People v.
    Heil, 
    71 Ill. 2d 458
    , 461 (1978); see Holwell v. Zenith Electronics
    Corp., 
    334 Ill. App. 3d 917
    , 922 (2002); Weilmuenster v. H.H. Hall
    -5-
    Construction Co., 
    72 Ill. App. 3d 101
    , 105 (1979). In Flowers, this
    court stated:
    “This 30-day limitation is incorporated into Rule 604(d),
    which governs postjudgment motions in cases such as the one
    before us where the defendant has pleaded guilty. Where, as
    here, more than 30 days have elapsed since sentence was
    imposed and the trial court has not extended the limitation
    period upon proper application of defendant for good cause
    shown, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction to entertain a
    defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment or reconsider the
    sentence pursuant to Rule 604(d).” 
    Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 303
    .
    Therefore, in the present case, by the time defendant filed his motion
    to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction, the circuit court
    no longer had the authority to consider it.
    However, defendant notes that at the hearing on his guilty plea,
    the circuit court indisputably failed to advise him regarding the right
    to appeal. “In all cases in which a judgment is entered upon a
    negotiated plea of guilty, at the time of imposing sentence,” Supreme
    Court Rule 605(c) sets forth admonitions that a defendant must
    substantially receive. Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992). This
    court has explained that Rule 605 is a necessary corollary to Rule
    604(d). Admonishing defendants regarding the requirements of Rule
    604(d) ensures that the ramifications of noncompliance comport with
    due process. See People v. Foster, 
    171 Ill. 2d 469
    , 472 (1996).
    Dismissal of an appeal based on a defendant’s failure to file the
    requisite motions in the circuit court would violate due process if the
    defendant did not know that filing such motions was necessary.
    
    Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301
    .
    Accordingly, this court has recognized an “admonition exception”
    to Rule 604(d). Where a circuit court fails to give applicable Rule 605
    admonishments and the defendant attempts to appeal without first
    filing the motions required by Rule 604(d), the appeal is not dismissed.
    Rather, the appellate court must remand the cause to the circuit court
    for strict compliance with Rule 604(d). 
    Id. (collecting cases).
         Citing People v. Egge, 
    194 Ill. App. 3d 712
    (1990), defendant
    relies solely on the “admonition exception” to Rule 604(d) to avoid
    -6-
    the circuit court’s 30-day jurisdictional limitation. Egge is unavailing.
    There, the appellate court stated that the lapse of more than 30 days
    from the imposition of sentence generally divests the circuit court of
    jurisdiction to entertain a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and vacate
    the judgment. However, the court proceeded to recognize the absence
    of proper Rule 605 admonishments as an exception to the circuit
    court’s 30-day jurisdictional limitation. 
    Id. at 716.
    This linkage is
    erroneous. The admonition exception provided by Rule 605 is for the
    appellate court to apply after defendant timely files a notice of appeal
    from a guilty plea even though the defendant did not first comply with
    Rule 604(d)’s condition precedent of filing a postplea motion in the
    circuit court. 
    Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301
    . The admonition exception
    cannot restore jurisdiction to the circuit court after 30 days from entry
    of judgment. See, e.g., 
    id. at 306.
    While the absence of
    admonishments is erroneous, the error does not render the judgment
    of a circuit court void, so that a defendant can raise the issue at any
    time. See People v. Jones, 
    213 Ill. 2d 498
    , 509 (2004); Davis, 
    156 Ill. 2d
    at 156-57.
    Defendant argues that respondent, retaining jurisdiction pursuant
    to Egge, had the duty to balance defendant’s untimely filing of his
    motion to vacate his guilty plea and vacate his conviction against the
    effect of the Rule 605 violation on defendant’s constitutional rights.
    However, it is not for the circuit and appellate courts to balance the
    filing requirements contained in supreme court rules against claimed
    deprivations of constitutional rights. Rather, “the appellate and circuit
    courts of this state must enforce and abide by the rules of this court.”
    (Emphasis in original.) People v. Lyles, 
    217 Ill. 2d 210
    , 216 (2005).
    This court has admonished counsel and courts that Rules 402, 604(d),
    and 605, which concern guilty pleas:
    “are meant to mesh together not only to ensure that
    defendants’ constitutional rights are protected, but also to
    avoid abuses by defendants. *** [T]hey have been constructed
    to conform this State’s criminal justice system to Federal
    constitutional standards and to avoid some of the excesses that
    both the State and defense counsel occasionally employ while
    they attempt to zealously represent their opposing interests.
    [Citations.] These rules are not written in a vacuum and they
    represent our best efforts at ordering the complex and delicate
    -7-
    process of plea bargains and guilty pleas.” 
    Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d at 103-04
    .
    Defendant correctly observes that Egge has never been explicitly
    overruled. However, it is readily apparent that Egge has been
    effectively overruled sub silentio by this court’s subsequent decisions.
    We today make explicit what had been implicit in cases like Flowers,
    Jones, and Lyles. Egge is no longer valid law.
    In the present case, the admonition exception is inapplicable
    because defendant did not mistakenly file a timely notice of appeal
    without first filing a Rule 604(d) motion in the circuit court. Rather,
    defendant filed in the circuit court an untimely motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea. The circuit court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s guilty plea
    and resulting conviction had long since lapsed by the time defendant
    finally asserted his belated request for relief pursuant to Rule 604(d).
    Therefore, respondent had no authority to address the Rule 604(d)
    motion on the merits. As it is undisputed that defendant’s motion to
    vacate his guilty plea was well beyond the time limits permitted by
    Rule 604(d), it is clear that respondent should have refused to
    entertain the motion and should have dismissed it for lack of
    jurisdiction. Even if he had found defendant’s Rule 605 contention
    meritorious, respondent could not have granted defendant relief.
    III. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, a writ of mandamus is awarded to the
    State. Respondent is directed to rescind his April 20, 2010, order and
    is further directed to dismiss defendant’s motion for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    Writ awarded.
    -8-