People v. Moon ( 2023 )

2023 IL App (1st) 210357-UNo. 1-21-0357
Order filed February 3, 2023
Sixth Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 18 CR 13214
)
DAVEON MOON, ) Honorable
) Michael Joseph Kane,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Oden Johnson concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
Held: Where the circuit court has, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c),
substantially informed a defendant of the means for appeal from a guilty plea and the
defendant files a motion to withdraw the plea more than 30 days of the entry of
judgment on the plea, the circuit court must dismiss the motion to withdraw the plea as
untimely.
¶1 Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Daveon Moon pled guilty to delivery
of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2018)) and violating the armed
habitual criminal provision of the Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2018)). Moon was
No. 1-21-0357
sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run consecutively.
Moon later filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, and the circuit court denied his motion as
untimely. In this appeal, Moon contends the circuit court did not correctly admonish him
concerning the procedures for appealing the guilty plea. We find the circuit court substantially
admonished Moon in accord with the applicable rule, and therefore, we affirm the circuit
court’s judgment.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 Following an incident in Chicago on August 4, 2018, Moon was charged by felony
complaint, case number 18 CR 13214, with delivery and possession of a controlled substance
and possession of a controlled substance. While on bond for those charges, he was charged in
an unrelated incident with, in relevant part, being an armed habitual offender under case
number 18 CR 11934. The trial court proceeded on both cases together. On May 30, 2019,
Moon, through counsel, requested a plea conference pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
402 (eff. July 1, 2012).
¶4 When Moon entered his pleas, the court sentenced him to the negotiated sentences of seven
years for each charge, with the sentences to run consecutively. The court admonished Moon:
“In the event you were to change your mind about your plea, you have 30 days
within which to file a motion to withdraw your plea of guilty. In that motion, you
have to itemize each and every reason why you think you should be allowed to
withdraw your plea of guilty. If I grant your motion on these cases or either one of
them, I'll vacate the plea that I entered today and I'll reset your case in the trial call,
-2-
No. 1-21-0357
and I'll let the State reinstate whatever counts that were dismissed pursuant to the
plea agreement. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: If I deny your motion, you have 30 days from the date I deny the
motion to withdraw your plea of guilty to file what is called a notice of appeal to
take my decision to the appellate court and have it reviewed by the justices of the
appellate court. If you could not afford an attorney, I would give you one free of
charge. I would also give you a copy of today's transcript to aid you in the
preparation of that motion.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.”
¶5 On March 9, 2020, far more than 30 days after the plea hearing, Moon filed a motion to
withdraw his plea, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court
denied the motion. Moon filed a second motion to withdraw his plea, adding new arguments.
The circuit court again denied the motion as untimely. Moon now appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶6 On appeal, Moon argues only that when the circuit court accepted his plea, the court failed
to admonish him in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Oct.
1, 2001). Because our decision turns on interpretation of a Supreme Court rule, we review the
issue de novo. People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449, 458, 841 N.E. 2d 872, 876 (2005).
¶7 Supreme Court Rule 605(c) provides:
-3-
No. 1-21-0357
¶8 "In all cases in which a judgment is entered upon a negotiated plea of guilty, at the time of
imposing sentence, the trial court shall advise the defendant substantially as follows:
(1) that the defendant has a right to appeal;
(2) that 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;
(3) that if the motion is allowed, the plea of guilty, sentence and judgment will be
vacated, and a trial date will be set on the charges to which the plea of guilty was
made;
(4) that upon the request of the State, any charges that may have been dismissed as
a part of a plea agreement will be reinstated and will also be set for trial;
(5) that if the defendant is indigent, a copy of the transcript of the proceedings at
the time of the defendant's plea of guilty and sentence will be provided without cost
to the defendant and counsel will be appointed to assist the defendant with the
preparation of the motions; and
(6) that in any appeal taken from the judgment on the plea of guilty any issue or
claim of error not raised in the motion to vacate the judgment and to withdraw the
plea of guilty shall be deemed waived. " Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001).
¶9 The parties agree that our supreme court’s opinion in People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336,
sets out the applicable principles. The Dominguez court stated:
-4-
No. 1-21-0357
“[T]he 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. 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.
¶ 10 The circuit court advised Moon that if it denied Moon’s motion to withdraw his plea, Moon
would have a right to appeal, substantially meeting the rule’s first requirement. The circuit
court advised Moon he had 30 days after sentencing to file a motion to withdraw his plea, and
the motion needed to include each and every reason for the court to allow him to withdraw the
plea, substantially meeting the rule’s second requirement. The court advised Moon that, if the
court allowed him to withdraw the plea, the court would vacate the plea and set the case for
trial, substantially complying with the rule’s third requirement. The court also advised Moon
that, if the court allowed him to withdraw the plea, the court would allow the State to reinstate
any charges dismissed as part of the plea agreement, in accordance with the rule’s fourth
requirement. The court informed Moon that it would provide him with a transcript of the plea
and he could have the assistance of a court-appointed attorney if he lacked funds to hire one
himself, substantially meeting the fifth requirement.
¶ 11 Moon argues the circuit court did not meet the rule’s sixth requirement. The court stated
that in the motion to withdraw the plea “you have to itemize each and every reason why you
think you should be allowed to withdraw your plea of guilty.” However, the court did not
specifically state that Moon would waive any argument not raised in the motion.
-5-
No. 1-21-0357
¶ 12 In Dominguez, the circuit court informed Dominguez of the “right to return to the
courtroom within 30 days to file motions to vacate your plea of guilty and/or reconsider your
sentence. The motions must be in writing and contain all the reasons to support them.”
Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 41. The Dominguez court found the admonishment sufficient
to meet the rule’s requirement. Id. ¶ 43. The admonishment here similarly informed Moon he
needed to include all reasons for withdrawing the plea without specifically mentioning waiver.
We find the lack of an explicit mention of waiver does not render the admonishments
insufficient.
¶ 13 Moon also contends the circuit court violated Rule 605(c) when it framed the
admonishment as what Moon should do “[i]n the event you were to change your mind,” instead
of framing the admonishment as the way to appeal from the conviction and sentence. Moon
would need to appeal only if he changed his mind about the plea agreement. We find the court’s
framing of the issue substantially complied with Rule 605(c).
¶ 14 CONCLUSION
¶ 15 The circuit court adequately informed Moon about his appeal rights in accordance with
Supreme Court Rule 605(c). Because Moon did not file his motions to withdraw his guilty
plea within 30 days, the circuit court correctly dismissed the motions. Accordingly, we affirm
the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 16 Affirmed.
-6-