People v. Jackson , 2024 IL App (4th) 230270-U ( 2024 )

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 230270-UThis Order was filed under
FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-23-0270 February 21, 2024
not precedent except in the Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Sangamon County
EZEKIEL N. JACKSON, ) No. 19CF271
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Ryan M. Cadagin,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the trial court failed to
substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001)
and, as a result, (2) the admonition exception applies to excuse defendant’s
noncompliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶2 In July 2022, defendant, Ezekiel N. Jackson, entered a negotiated plea to aggravated
battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2018)). At the sentencing hearing,
defendant made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court took up and
denied. The court then admonished defendant of the requirement to file a written motion to
withdraw his guilty plea within 30 days to perfect an appeal. Thereafter, the court allowed the
filing of defendant’s notice of appeal without him first filing a motion to withdraw his plea.
¶3 On appeal, defendant acknowledges his failure to file a timely postplea motion as
required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017) but contends this does not
preclude his appeal because the trial court’s admonitions did not comply with Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). On that basis, defendant asks that we remand for proper
admonitions and to allow him to file a new postplea motion. For the following reasons, we
conclude the admonition exception excuses defendant’s noncompliance with Rule 604(d).
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 In April 2019, the State charged defendant by information with one count each of
aggravated battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2018)), aggravated discharge
of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2) (West 2018)), attempted armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a),
18-2(a)(2) (West 2018)), attempted aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 18-1(b)(1) (West
2018)), and aggravated assault (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1) (West 2018)). In July 2022, defendant,
proceeding pro se, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery with a firearm pursuant to a
negotiated plea. The sentencing hearing was continued until September at defendant’s request.
¶6 On September 22, 2022, the trial court began the sentencing hearing by asking the
parties to confirm if there was an agreed upon sentence. While defendant remained pro se at the
sentencing hearing, attorney Daniel Noll represented defendant in Sangamon County case No. 21-
CF-344, where he was charged with aggravated battery to a correctional officer. At the sentencing
hearing, Noll informed the trial court defendant was confused about the amount of custody credit
he was entitled to in both cases:
“The point of contention comes down to credit for time served. As
reflected in the presentence investigation report, [defendant] has credit of
one thousand two hundred and seventy-six days.
[Defendant] believes that he should also receive a credit of five
hundred and five days that he has been in custody on the aggravated battery
-2-
[to a correctional officer] case. And that one thousand two hundred and
seventy-six days should be credited to the robbery.”
¶7 The State responded:
“These are consecutive cases. And as I understand [defendant], he
is seeking for the five hundred and five days that he was in custody on the
[aggravated battery to a correctional officer] that he also get credit in that
same amount in the aggravated battery with a firearm [case]. I don’t believe
that could be allowed by law and I did propose to Mr. Noll that [defendant]
can choose how he wants to allocate those five hundred and five days, but
they can’t go to both.”
¶8 After hearing from the State, the trial court explained to defendant he could only
receive credit for a total of 1276 days inclusive of 505 days—the latter could not be added to the
former. Noll requested the opportunity to speak with defendant to determine if he wanted to move
to withdraw his guilty plea in the aggravated battery with a firearm case in light of his
misunderstanding of his eligibility for credit. Afterwards, Noll emphasized he did not represent
defendant in that case and could not move to withdraw his plea. The colloquy between the court
and defendant on this subject proceeded as follows:
“THE COURT: Very well. [Defendant], do you want to be heard on
your motion to withdraw your guilty plea in [case No.] 19-CF-271?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Please.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, first of all, as we just recently took up
the fact that I was not aware that I wouldn’t be receiving my consecutive
-3-
time served. I did not realize how it was, you know what I’m saying, I never
passed the bar so I don’t know or understand the statute. Also when I plead
[sic] out that day, they did—they threaten[ed] to incarcerate my little
brother. That they would have the sentence or the plea bargaining that day.
And I kind of sort of took it because I didn’t want my little brother to go to
jail.”
¶9 The State responded:
“[Defendant] was certainly advised that these cases were
consecutive in nature. He chose to represent himself. If he was confused
about what implications that had for his credit time served, he has no one to
blame but himself. He chose to represent himself.
And I believe it would have stood out to me if this Court told ***
him he could have gotten credit for both cases simultaneously because I
believe if I heard that, I believe I would have corrected that because I knew
that to be false. So this Court should deny the motion to withdraw his plea
at this time.”
¶ 10 The trial court denied defendant’s oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Thereafter, the court commenced the sentencing hearing and sentenced defendant to 10 years’
imprisonment to be served at 85%, followed by 3 years’ mandatory supervised release on the count
of aggravated battery with a firearm. This sentence was to be served consecutively to defendant’s
sentence for aggravated battery to a correctional officer in Sangamon County case No. 21-CF-344.
The court then delivered the following admonishments:
-4-
“You do have a right to appeal. Prior to taking an appeal, you must
first file within thirty days of today a written motion asking to have the Trial
Court reconsider the sentence or to have the judgment vacated and for leave
to withdraw the plea of guilty setting forth the grounds for the motion.
If the motion [is] allowed, the sentence will be modified or the plea
of guilty and judgment will be vacated and a trial date will be set on the
charges to which the plea of guilty was made.
Upon request of the State, any charges that were dismissed as part
of the plea agreement will be reinstated and will also be set for trial.
If you are indigent, a copy of the transcript of proceedings will be
provided to you for the plea of guilty and sentence without cost, and counsel
would be appointed to assist you with preparation of the motions.
Any appeal from the judgment of the plea of guilty or on any issues
in the motion to reconsider or vacate the judgment that are not brought up
shall be deemed waived.”
¶ 11 At an October 18, 2022, hearing, Noll again raised defendant’s position as to his
entitlement to additional custody credit in both Sangamon County case No. 21-CF-344 and the
instant case. Noll did so in connection with a motion to reconsider defendant’s sentence filed in
case No. 21-CF-344. The trial court denied this motion. After the court explained to defendant that
Noll could not “file motions on cases that he’s not [defendant’s] attorney on,” defendant asked
how he could appeal. The court stated it “will just order it right now,” and “[w]e can file that notice
[of appeal] right now.” The court clarified this applied to both cases. However, the clerk of the
Sangamon County circuit court did not file defendant’s notice of appeal until March 23, 2023.
-5-
Defendant filed a motion for a supervisory order with the Illinois Supreme Court. On September
28, 2023, the supreme court directed this court to treat the notice of appeal as a properly perfected
appeal from the September 22, 2022, judgment.
¶ 12 As a result, pursuant to the supreme court’s order, we consider defendant’s appeal.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court’s admonitions did not substantially
comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). He acknowledges he did not
file a written motion to withdraw his plea, which is a prerequisite to an appeal from a guilty plea.
See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). However, he asserts that, because the court’s
admonitions did not substantially comply with Rule 605(c), the “admonition exception” excuses
his noncompliance with Rule 604(d). Defendant contends it is “understandable” why he would not
have filed a written motion because he received “confusing” and “contradictory” instructions and
admonishments from the trial court. Specifically, the court entertained and denied his oral motion
and then admonished him a written motion would be first required to perfect an appeal. Defendant
requests we remand for proper admonitions and to allow him to file a new postplea motion.
¶ 15 As this appeal is from a judgment entered upon a negotiated plea of guilty, Illinois
Supreme Court Rules 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017) and 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) apply. 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 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.
***
-6-
The motion shall be in writing, and shall state the grounds therefor.”
Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 16 “Rule 605(c), which complement[s] Rule 604(d) and serve[s] as a corollary to the
requirements of Rule 604(d), provide[s] the admonitions the trial judge must give a defendant
when imposing a sentence on a defendant who has pled guilty” pursuant to a negotiated plea.
People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 13, 976 N.E.2d 983. Rule 605(c) provides, in pertinent
part:
“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[.]”
Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023).
¶ 17 As the Illinois Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he filing of a Rule 604(d) motion
is a condition precedent to an appeal from a judgment on a plea of guilty.” People v. Flowers, 208
Ill. 2d 291, 300-01, 802 N.E.2d 1174, 1180 (2003). However, “[t]his rule is not without
exceptions.” Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301.
“Dismissal of an appeal based on a defendant’s failure to file the requisite
motions in the trial court would violate due process if the defendant did not
know that filing such motions was necessary. [Citation.] Accordingly,
-7-
Supreme Court Rule 605 [citation] mandates that the trial court advise
defendants, at the time sentence is imposed, of the procedural steps Rule
604(d) requires them to take in order to appeal. If the trial court fails to give
the admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and the defendant subsequently
attempts to appeal without first filing the motions required by Rule 604(d),
the appeal is not dismissed. Instead, the appropriate course is to remand the
cause to the trial court for strict compliance with Rule 604(d). [Citation.]”
Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301.
¶ 18 While Rule 605(c) “must be strictly complied with in that the admonitions must be
given to a defendant who has pled guilty,” the “plain meaning of the rule requires only that a
defendant be ‘substantially’ advised of the actual content of Rule 605(c).” Dominguez, 2012 IL
111336, ¶ 11. Rather than being required to read the contents of Rule 605(c) verbatim to a
defendant, “the court must impart to a defendant largely that which is specified in the rule, or the
rule’s ‘essence,’ as opposed to ‘wholly’ what is specified in the rule.” Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336,
¶ 19. In sum, “[s]o 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.
¶ 19 As it involves the interpretation of a supreme court rule, our review of the trial
court’s compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) is de novo.
Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 13.
¶ 20 Here, defendant does not challenge the textual accuracy or sufficiency of the trial
court’s admonishments, though we note the court recited those prescribed in Rule 605(b) rather
than 605(c). This alone, as we have recognized, would be sufficient to require remand for
-8-
admonishments under Rule 605(c). See People v. Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d 1126, 1129, 903 N.E.2d
434, 437 (2009) (finding “the trial court admonished defendant consistent with the requirements
of Rule 605(b), applicable to nonnegotiated pleas of guilty, rather than in accordance with Rule
605(c), pertaining to negotiated pleas of guilty” and remanding for new admonishments).
Defendant’s contention here is the court erred by inconsistently admonishing defendant his motion
to withdraw must be in writing to perfect an appeal after already taking up and denying an oral
motion to withdraw a guilty plea and then directing a notice of appeal to be filed despite the lack
of a written motion.
¶ 21 This appeal presents circumstances similar to those we considered in People v.
Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, 992 N.E.2d 198. In Jones, the defendant entered into a fully
negotiated plea agreement to one count of domestic battery in exchange for 24 months’ probation
and a period of jail time. Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 4. On appeal, the defendant argued
the trial court did not substantially comply with Rule 605(c) and “affirmatively misled [her] as to
how to appeal her conviction.” Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 9. The record disclosed the
court “specifically recalled telling defendant she had 30 days from the date of sentencing to file a
notice of appeal.” Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 10. The record, however, disclosed “the
court did not independently recall whether it verbally admonished defendant of the requirements
of Rule 605(c).” Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 10. Indeed, the defendant specifically recalled
the court did not so admonish her. Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 15. In sum:
“The defendant, who was proceeding pro se, stated the trial court
did not tell her she would need to file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea
within 30 days if she wanted to preserve her right to appeal. Neither the
court nor the State could specifically recall whether the court verbally
-9-
admonished defendant of this requirement.” Jones, 2013 IL App (4th)
120300, ¶ 16.
¶ 22 Under the circumstances, we observed:
“Assuming arguendo the trial court told defendant she needed to file a
motion to withdraw her guilty plea, *** the court provided the defendant
with explicitly contradictory admonitions. The court noted it orally advised
defendant ‘she had the right to appeal the Judgment and Sentence of the
Court and, that if she chose to do [so] that she would need to file a notice of
appeal within 30 days of the date she was in court.’ This is exactly what
defendant did.” Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 17.
¶ 23 We therefore concluded the “[d]efendant’s procedural due process rights would be
violated if we dismissed her appeal when she followed the instructions of the trial court.” Jones,
2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 18. We remanded for proper admonishments and the opportunity for
the defendant to file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Jones, 2013 IL App (4th) 120300, ¶ 23.
¶ 24 Similarly, here, the trial court’s acts of considering and denying an oral motion and
then admonishing defendant the motion must be in writing were confusing and contradictory.
Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendant could have been understandably
disinclined to file a written motion arguing what he had just unsuccessfully asserted verbally.
Moreover, on October 18, 2022, a date within the 30-day time period during which defendant
arguably could have filed a written motion to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant asked the court
how he could appeal. The court responded, “I will just order it right now,” and “[w]e can file that
notice [of appeal] right now.” The court then ordered the filing of a notice of appeal. In doing so,
the court undermined its previous admonishment regarding the requirement defendant submit a
- 10 -
written motion to withdraw his guilty plea before appealing. In other words, the court conveyed
the impression all that was necessary to perfect an appeal was the notice of appeal, even though a
written motion to withdraw the guilty plea is “a condition precedent to an appeal from a judgment
on a plea of guilty.” Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 300-01. If the court had properly admonished defendant
at this time, he would have had a few days left to properly comply with Rule 604(d). Under these
circumstances, “it would violate procedural due process rights to hold *** defendant responsible
for noncompliance with the strictures of Rule 604(d).” People v. Foster, 171 Ill. 2d 469, 473, 665
N.E.2d 823, 825 (1996). Accordingly, remand to the trial court for proper admonishments and the
opportunity for defendant to file a written postplea motion is “the appropriate course.” Flowers,
208 Ill. 2d at 301.
¶ 25 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 26 For the reasons stated, we remand to the trial court for new postplea proceedings,
including proper Rule 605(c) admonishments and the opportunity for defendant to file a new
postplea motion.
¶ 27 Reversed and remanded.
- 11 -