People v. Whitehurst

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).
2023 IL App (3d) 220401-UOrder filed August 22, 2023
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit,
) La Salle County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-22-0401
v. ) Circuit No. 21-CF-321
)
JERRAD T. WHITEHURST, ) Honorable
) Cynthia M. Raccuglia,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Brennan concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s postplea admonishments did not substantially comply with
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c).
¶2 Defendant, Jerrad T. Whitehurst, pled guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues the La Salle County circuit
court erred by failing to properly admonish him regarding the requirements for filing postplea
motions in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c). We remand for further
proceedings.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged by superseding indictment with aggravated criminal sexual abuse
(720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(c)(1)(i) (West 2018)). Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in
exchange for a sentencing cap of five years’ imprisonment. Defendant subsequently received three
years’ imprisonment. After imposing defendant’s sentence, the court admonished defendant as
follows:
“This is a final and appealable order, but in order to appeal, you need to file a
motion to vacate your guilty plea in this court 30 days from today’s date or you
waive any further appeal rights.
If you just want to appeal your sentence, then I—you need to do a motion—
well, you can’t. You just have to vacate the guilty plea because there was a cap that
was done in this case.”
Defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal within 30 days of sentencing.
¶5 II. ANALYSIS
¶6 Defendant argues on appeal that he failed to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in
compliance with Rule 604(d) prior to taking this appeal because the circuit court did not adequately
admonish him regarding this requirement pursuant to Rule 605(c). See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff.
July 1, 2017); Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). Defendant asserts that because the court
erred, his appeal should not be dismissed and requests we remand with the opportunity to file new
postplea motions. Compliance with Rule 604(d) is a condition precedent to an appeal of a plea of
guilty and dismissal is proper when this condition is not met. People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 107
(1988). Under the admonishment exception to this rule, the cause is remanded rather than
dismissed “[i]f the trial court fails to give the admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and the
2
defendant subsequently attempts to appeal without first filing the motions required by Rule
604(d).” People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003).
¶7 When imposing a sentence for a negotiated guilty plea, Rule 605(c) requires the circuit
court to advise the defendant:
“(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).
3
While it is mandatory that circuit courts admonish defendants pursuant to Rule 605(c), a strict
verbatim reading of the rule is not required. People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶¶ 17, 19.
Rather, the court must substantially comply with the rule by conveying the substance or “essence”
of the rule to a defendant. Id. ¶ 22. A court’s admonitions are sufficient for substantial compliance
with the rule when “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.” Id. However, admonishments that
fail to reference certain portions of Rule 605(c) altogether are inadequate. People v. Perry, 2014
IL App (1st) 122584, ¶ 16. We review de novo whether the court substantially complied with the
admonition requirements under Rule 605(c). People v. Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d 1126, 1127 (2009).
¶8 Here, the record reflects that the court did not substantially comply with Rule 605(c)
because it did not provide any of the admonitions prescribed in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).
See People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. App. 3d 379, 384 (2003) (“The trial court is required to substantially
admonish the defendant of all subsections of Rule 605(c).” (Emphasis added.)). By not addressing
these subsections, the court failed to properly inform defendant of the potential consequences of
withdrawing his plea, advise him of his right to appointed counsel, and explain that omitted claims
would be waived.
¶9 Moreover, the brief admonitions that were given were confusing and misleading. After the
court informed defendant in accordance with Rule 605(c)(2) that he would need to file a motion
to vacate his guilty plea or he would waive his appeal rights, the court immediately followed with
“[i]f you just want to appeal your sentence, then I—you need to do a motion—well, you can’t.
You just have to vacate the guilty plea because there was a cap that was done in this case.” This
admonishment suggested defendant could appeal his sentence without first filing a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. While the court attempted to correct the admonishment, it failed to do so
4
with enough clarity to properly inform defendant of the prerequisite jurisdictional steps to taking
an appeal pursuant to Rule 604(d). These incorrect admonitions seemingly contributed to
defendant incorrectly filing a pro se notice of appeal to vacate his guilty plea. It is reasonable to
assume that had all of the admonitions under Rule 605(c) been correctly provided, defendant may
have instead filed the correct motion, perhaps even with the assistance of counsel, preserving his
right to appeal.
¶ 10 In providing unclear admonitions and omitting the admonishments under subsections (3),
(4), (5), and (6), the court did not substantially comply with Rule 605(c). Therefore, we remand
the cause for proper admonishments in compliance with Rule 605(c) and the opportunity for
defendant to file postplea motions under Rule 604(d). See id. at 385-86 (case remanded when court
did not provide admonishments pursuant to subsections (3), (4), and (5) of Rule 605(c)).
¶ 11 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 12 For the reasons stated, we remand to the La Salle County circuit court for further
proceedings.
¶ 13 Remanded.
5