People v. Cone

2025 IL App (2d) 240474

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 2-24-0474
• Status: Published

Opinion

2025 IL App (2d) 240474 No. 2-24-0474 Opinion filed September 25, 2025 ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 23-CF-2035 ) JOHN S. CONE, ) Honorable ) Donald M. Tegeler Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McLaren and Hutchinson concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Defendant, John S. Cone, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to a single count of aggravated

driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2), (d)(1)(A) (West 2022)) and was

sentenced to 24 months’ probation. He filed a timely notice of appeal without moving to withdraw

his plea. Defendant argues that the trial court failed to properly admonish him, under Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024), of his right to counsel to assist him with the

preparation of a motion to withdraw his plea. He asks that the case be remanded to the trial court

for proper admonitions. We agree that the admonitions were deficient, and we remand the case for

further proceedings. 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

¶2 I. BACKGROUND

¶3 Defendant entered his negotiated guilty plea on August 9, 2024. Privately retained counsel

represented him. After pronouncing sentence, the trial court advised defendant as follows:

“All right. Although you pled guilty, you have the right to appeal. In order to do so,

you must first file a written motion in this [c]ourt within the next 30 days asking leave to

withdraw your plea of guilty.

You must list every reason you wish to withdraw your plea of guilty.

Any reason not listed is deemed waived or given up forever.

If you filed that motion and I agreed with you, I would allow you to withdraw the

plea of guilty and any charges that were dismissed today would be reinstated and we would

simply start going to trial.

If I denied your motion, you could appeal my decision to the Illinois Appellate

Court in the [S]econd [D]istrict.

If you cannot afford an attorney on appeal, one would be provided for you and you

would receive a free transcript of today’s proceedings.”

Defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights.

¶4 On August 13, 2024, trial counsel’s firm filed a motion to withdraw, asserting that it had

completed all legal work it was required to perform under its agreement with defendant and that,

“as a post-judgment matter, the burden of responsibility now lies solely on [d]efendant to complete

all terms on the judgment.” On August 15, 2024, defendant filed his notice of appeal pro se. As

noted, he never moved to withdraw his guilty plea.

-2- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

¶5 II. ANALYSIS

¶6 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024) provides in pertinent part:

“No appeal shall be taken upon a negotiated plea of guilty challenging the sentence

as excessive unless the defendant, within 30 days of the imposition of sentence, files a

motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. For purposes of this rule, a

negotiated plea of guilty is one in which the prosecution has bound itself to recommend a

specific sentence, or a specific range of sentence, or where the prosecution has made

concessions relating to the sentence to be imposed and not merely to the charge or charges

then pending.”

¶7 Rule 605(c) requires the trial court to admonish the defendant about the right to appeal and

the steps necessary to exercise the right to appeal from a judgment entered on a negotiated guilty

plea. 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;

(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;

-3- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

(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. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶8 Rule 605(c) “must be strictly complied with in that the admonitions must be given to a

defendant who has pled guilty.” People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 11. “Failure to do so

requires remand for proper admonishment.” Id. “However, the plain meaning of the rule requires

only that a defendant be ‘substantially’ advised of the actual content of [the rule].” Id. A court

satisfies this standard by advising a defendant in a manner that “impart[s] *** largely that which

is specified in the rule, or the rule’s ‘essence,’ as opposed to ‘wholly’ what is specified in the rule.”

Id. ¶ 19. We review de novo the sufficiency of admonitions under Rule 605(c). Id. ¶ 13.

¶9 Before considering the sufficiency of the admonitions in this case, we consider the State’s

arguments that we lack jurisdiction and that, by pleading guilty, defendant waived any claim of

error pertaining to Rule 605(c) admonitions. According to the State, we lack jurisdiction because

defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea. Although a defendant’s failure to file a

timely motion to withdraw a negotiated guilty plea requires dismissal of an appeal from the

judgment entered on the plea (People v. Hayes, 2022 IL App (2d) 210014, ¶ 34), the failure does

not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction (People v. McKay, 282 Ill. App. 3d 108, 111 (1996)).

We explained in McKay:

-4- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

“A Rule 604(d) motion is not jurisdictional in the same sense as a notice of appeal

is essential to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction over a civil appeal. Jurisdiction has

been defined as a court’s authority to ‘take cognizance of and decide cases’ [citation] and

‘exercise its power with respect to a particular matter’ [citation]. Notwithstanding its

jurisdiction, an appellate court may find an issue is waived for a variety of reasons.

[Citations.] The underlying purpose of waiver is to preserve finite judicial resources by

creating an incentive for litigants to bring to trial courts’ attention alleged errors, thereby

giving trial courts an opportunity to correct their mistakes. [Citation.] As such, the doctrine

of waiver is an admonition to the parties, not a limitation on the appellate court’s

jurisdiction.” Id.

¶ 10 Our supreme court has specifically endorsed this view. See In re William M., 206 Ill. 2d

595, 601 (2003) (holding that McKay was correct that a Rule 604(d) motion is not required to vest

the appellate court with jurisdiction in an appeal from a guilty plea). Significantly, under the well-

recognized “ ‘admonition exception’ ” to the general rule requiring dismissal of an appeal for

noncompliance with Rule 604(d)’s motion requirement, dismissal is improper where the trial court

failed to properly admonish the defendant under Rule 605(c). People ex rel. Alvarez v. Skryd, 241

Ill. 2d 34, 41 (2011). In such cases, the appellate court will remand to the trial court for further

postplea proceedings rather than dismiss the appeal. Id. If the motion requirement were

jurisdictional, dismissal would be mandatory in any case where the motion was absent.

¶ 11 We also reject the State’s argument that, by pleading guilty, defendant waived any error

pertaining to the admonitions. The principle that the State invokes is typically formulated as “a

voluntary guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional errors or irregularities.” People v. Townsell, 209

Ill. 2d 543, 545 (2004). However, despite the breadth of this formulation, the case law makes clear

-5- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

that only errors occurring before entry of the guilty plea are waived. See, e.g., People v. Stanley,

50 Ill. 2d 320, 321-22 (1972) (“It is well established that a voluntary plea of guilty waives any

prior defect other than those of a jurisdictional nature ***.” (Emphasis added.)); People v. Elam,

39 Ill. App. 3d 705, 708 (1976) (“When a plea of guilty is voluntarily made, it admits every

material fact alleged in the indictment and all the elements of the crime with which an accused is

legally charged and it waives prior nonjurisdictional defects.” (Emphasis added.)); People v.

Bassett, 25 Ill. App. 3d 927, 931 (1975) (“[W]e note that the defendants entered a voluntary plea

of guilty which, in Illinois, waives any nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings against

the defendants.” (Emphasis added.)) To illustrate, in People v. Siglar, 18 Ill. App. 3d 381, 384

(1974), the court held that the defendant’s guilty plea did not waive appellate review of whether

his sentences conformed to the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 1001-1-1

et seq.). The court reasoned that, “while the plea might waive prior defects, it could not possibly

waive subsequent ones.” Siglar, 18 Ill. App. 3d at 384. As noted, the “admonition exception” (see

Skryd, 241 Ill. 2d at 41) implicitly confirms this understanding of the scope of the waiver that flows

from a guilty plea. After all, in every case in which the exception is invoked, the defendant has

pleaded guilty. If the guilty plea waived error in the admonitions, the exception would be a nullity.

¶ 12 Turning to the merits, the outcome of this appeal hinges primarily on the applicability of

Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶¶ 51, 54, in which our supreme court rejected a challenge to the

sufficiency of the trial court’s Rule 605(c) admonition regarding the right to counsel to assist with

preparation of the defendant’s postplea motion. Defendant maintains that Dominguez is

distinguishable. The State maintains that it is not. As explained below, we agree with defendant.

-6- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

¶ 13 In Dominguez, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to a single count of predatory criminal

sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to a 16-year prison term. Id. ¶¶ 1, 5. After imposing

sentence, the trial court admonished the defendant as follows:

“ ‘Sir, even though you have pled guilty and been found guilty, you have certain rights.

Those rights include your 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. Any reasons not contained therein will not be

preserved for purposes of appeal. Should your motion to vacate your plea of guilty be

granted, your plea of guilty and the judgment I have entered thereon will be vacated,

meaning erased. Your case will be set back down on the trial calendar for further

proceedings. Should your motion to reconsider sentence be granted, you will be

resentenced. In the event the motions are denied, you have 30 days from denial to return to

file a notice of appeal the Court’s ruling. If you wish to do so and could not afford an

attorney, we will give you an attorney free of charge, along with the transcripts necessary

for those purposes.’ ” Id. ¶ 5.

After providing these admonitions, the court confirmed that the defendant had signed a written

“ ‘acknowledgement of those rights.’ ” Id. The signed acknowledgement recited the language of

Rule 605(c) nearly verbatim. Id. ¶ 6. The defendant filed a notice of appeal without first filing a

postplea motion within 30 days. Id. ¶ 7. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. Id. ¶ 8.

¶ 14 On appeal to our supreme court, the defendant argued the trial court did not comply with

Rule 605(c) because, inter alia, the court’s admonition created the impression that the defendant

was entitled to counsel only if his postplea motion were denied. Id. ¶ 47. The Dominguez court

-7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

rejected the argument, relying on In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338 (2006), and People v. Dunn, 342 Ill.

App. 3d 872 (2003). Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶¶ 48-51.

¶ 15 In Dunn, the trial court admonished the defendant in relevant part:

“ ‘Sir, you have a right to appeal. Prior to doing that, you have to file a motion to

withdraw your plea of guilty within 30 days in writing setting forth all the reasons why you

want me to allow you to withdraw your plea of guilty. Any reasons not set forth in your

motion will be waived for purposes of appeal. If you couldn’t afford an attorney or a copy

of the transcript, those will be provided for you free of charge. If I allow you to withdraw

your plea of guilty, all charges will be reinstated.’ ” Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 876.

The appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court “failed to admonish him

that appointed counsel could help him draft postplea motions.” Id. at 882. The court reasoned:

“[The] admonitions reflect that a court-appointed attorney would be available for [the] defendant.

The language used by the trial court was not the exact language employed by the rule; however,

the trial court’s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule.” Id. Thus, the court found

compliance with Rule 605(c), even though the defendant was not explicitly told that counsel would

assist with the defendant’s postplea motion.

¶ 16 In J.T., a juvenile who had previously admitted to the allegations of a wardship petition

appealed from an order revoking his probation, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with

Rule 605 1 by neglecting, inter alia, to inform him during the plea hearing of his right to counsel

1 The defendant argued that the trial court failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b)

(188 Ill. 2d 605(b)) (Jones, 221 Ill. 2d at 347), but the supreme court instead applied Rule 605(c) because

the defendant’s plea to the revocation petition was negotiated (id. at 342).

-8- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

to assist with postplea motions. J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 342, 344. The trial court’s only reference to

counsel was: “ ‘[I]f you go up on appeal and you are unable to hire an attorney to represent you,

the Court will appoint an attorney for you free of charge.’ ” Id. at 343. The supreme court stressed

the procedural posture of the case: because the respondent did not raise the issue in an appeal from

the delinquency finding itself, relief was available only by exercise of the court’s supervisory

authority, which was typically reserved for cases where “the normal appellate process will not

afford adequate relief and the dispute involves a matter important to the administration of justice.”

Id. at 347. Framing the relevant inquiry as “whether [the respondent] was prejudiced or denied real

justice and therefore that ‘fundamental fairness’ requires the court to grant supervisory relief” (id.

at 347), the court declined to exercise its supervisory authority (id. at 349).

¶ 17 The J.T. court explained that the respondent had been admonished that, if he wished to

appeal, he had 30 days to do so but would first need to file a motion to withdraw his admission to

the allegations of the delinquency petition. Id. at 347. The J.T. court concluded that, “[w]hile these

admonitions did not strictly comply with Rule 605(c), they were sufficient to put [the respondent]

on notice that he could challenge his guilty plea, and that some action on his part within 30 days

was necessary if he wished to appeal.” Id. at 347-48. The court further noted, inter alia, that the

respondent was “familiar with the criminal justice system” and had several opportunities to express

an intention to withdraw his admission. Id. at 348. The court concluded that the respondent “chose

not to appeal because he was satisfied with his sentence” and that the case was not one “where the

normal appellate process cannot provide adequate relief, nor does it involve an issue important to

the administration of justice.” Id. The J.T. court did not specifically address the question of whether

the admonitions were sufficient to inform the respondent of the right to counsel to assist with a

postplea motion.

-9- 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

¶ 18 Although, unlike the J.T. court, the Dominguez court was not constrained by the limitations

on the exercise of its supervisory authority, the Dominguez court drew guidance from J.T. After

summarizing J.T. and Dunn, the Dominguez court reasoned as follows:

“Here, as in both J.T. and Dunn, the trial court arguably did not explicitly inform

[the] defendant that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed to help him prepare the

postplea motions. However, as in both those cases, the admonitions reflect that a court-

appointed attorney would be available for [the] defendant. Thus, like in those cases, the

trial court’s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule to [the] defendant and

complied with Rule 605(c).” Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 51.

¶ 19 The Domiguez court was not unaware that the analogy to J.T. was imperfect. In a footnote,

the Dominguez court explained:

“This court acknowledges that the procedural posture in J.T. is distinguishable from

the instant case and informed much of the J.T. court’s analysis when it came to issues such

as prejudice, how much the respondent had been in court, etc. In that case, this court

employed a fundamental fairness/prejudice analysis because the respondent had failed to

file a timely notice of appeal, leave to file late notice of appeal, or motion to reconsider

sentence/withdraw guilty plea and thus the appellate court had no jurisdiction, necessitating

a supervisory order from this court.

However, this court’s finding that the ‘admonitions did not strictly comply with

Rule 605(c)’ but ‘were sufficient to put J.T. on notice that he could challenge his guilty

plea and that some action on his part within 30 days was necessary if he wished to appeal’

is informative of what the standard should be for determining whether a circuit court has

properly admonished a guilty plea defendant under Rule 605(b) or (c) so as not to violate

- 10 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

due process. This applies to the substantive analysis of whether Rule 605(c) admonitions

were adequate, separate and apart from the prejudice and ‘fundamental fairness’ issues at

play in J.T. due to the request for a supervisory order.” Id. ¶ 43 n.5.

Interestingly, although the Dominguez court specifically addressed whether the defendant was

adequately informed of his right to counsel to assist with the preparation of a postplea motion, the

Dominguez court—despite its reliance on J.T.—never acknowledged that the J.T. court did not

specifically address the adequacy of the right-to-counsel admonition given to the respondent in

that case.

¶ 20 Defendant argues that Dominguez is distinguishable. Defendant relies, in part, on People

v. Blackmon, 2024 IL App (1st) 220586. In that case, the defendant entered a negotiated guilty

plea and was sentenced per his agreement with the State. Id. ¶ 4. After imposing sentence, the trial

court admonished the defendant as follows:

“ ‘[E]ven though you plead guilty here today, you do have the right to appeal if within 30

days of today’s date you file a written motion with the Clerk of the Circuit Court to

withdraw your plea.

If I grant your motion, I will set your matters down for trial in [sic] the cases that

were dismissed or modified pursuant to the agreement would be reinstated if the State

requested that I do so.

If I deny your motion, you will have 30 days from the date of that denial to file a

written notice of appeal.

If you are indigent and cannot afford an attorney or transcript, both will be provided

to you at no cost to help with the appeal process; do you understand?’ ” Id.

- 11 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

¶ 21 As in this case, the defendant in Blackmon appealed without having filed the requisite

postplea motion but claimed that he was not properly admonished that he had the right to counsel

to help him prepare a postplea motion. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9. A divided panel remanded the case to the trial

court to afford the defendant an opportunity, after proper admonitions, to move to withdraw his

guilty plea. Id. ¶ 14. The court reasoned:

“Both this court and the Fourth District have held that Rule 605(c) admonishments

are insufficient if they suggest that a defendant will be appointed counsel only when his

case reaches the appellate court. In People v. Zavala, 2021 IL App (1st) 182701-U, ¶¶ 13,

18, another panel of this court found that the trial court did not substantially comply with

Rule 605(c) because it told the defendant that he ‘had the right to appointed counsel to help

him “exercise his right to appeal.” ’ Telling the defendant that counsel would be appointed

‘on appeal did not necessarily mean to him that counsel could help him file the appropriate

postplea motions in the trial court.’ [Citation.] Similarly, in People v. Murphy, 2021 IL

App (4th) 200523-U, ¶ 16, the Fourth District held that advising the defendant that he

would be appointed counsel if he appealed after the denial of a postplea motion ‘did not

impart to defendant the “essence” of Rule 605(c)(5)—that he was also entitled to appointed

counsel during postplea proceedings.’ We find the reasoning of these decisions

persuasive.” Id. ¶ 10.

¶ 22 The court distinguished Dominguez, observing as follows:

“In Dominguez, the defendant was provided with a written copy of the Rule 605(c)

admonishments ‘almost verbatim,’ which he signed. [Citation.] There is no indication that

occurred in this case. Furthermore, in Dominguez, the trial court’s oral admonishments

mentioned filing a motion to vacate the guilty plea and/or to reconsider the sentence five

- 12 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

times before the trial court concluded by telling [the] defendant that if such a motion was

denied, then [the] defendant could appeal, and that, ‘ “we will give you an attorney free of

charge, along with the transcripts necessary for those purposes.” ’ (Emphasis added.)

[Citation.] Read as a whole, the trial court’s admonishments emphasized the importance of

filing a motion to vacate the guilty plea and encompassed that step in the ‘purposes’ for

which counsel would be appointed. The trial court in Dominguez did not connect the

appointment of counsel to ‘the appeals ([sic]) process.’ By contrast, in this case, the trial

court’s admonishments did connect the appointment of counsel with ‘the appeals ([sic])

process’ specifically and exclusively.” Id. ¶ 11.

¶ 23 Justice Reyes dissented. Id. ¶ 16 (Reyes, J., dissenting). He found “no appreciable

differences between the oral admonishments provided in this case and those found sufficient in

Dominguez.” Id. ¶ 24. Justice Reyes added:

“Nothing in Dominguez suggests that, in order to comply with Rule 605(c), the trial court

must make an explicit statement that counsel could be appointed to assist specifically with

postplea motions. Indeed, the supreme court upheld the admonishment in that case while

expressly noting that the trial court’s admonishment arguably did not contain such an

explicit statement.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id.

Justice Reyes found no merit to the majority’s observation that (in Justice Reyes’s words) “the

trial court’s admonishment in the instant case referenced the ‘appeals ([sic]) process,’ suggesting

that this indicated that counsel would be appointed only if defendant filed an appeal.” Id. ¶ 27.

Justice Reyes reasoned that, “in both Dominguez and J.T., our supreme court found

admonishments sufficient even where they arguably made similar references.” (Emphasis added.)

Id.

- 13 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

¶ 24 As pertinent to this case, the admonition in Blackmon was closely analogous to the one

given to defendant. Defendant asks us to follow Blackmon. The State responds that the dissent in

Blackmon is better reasoned than the majority opinion. We disagree. The majority in Blackmon

distinguished Dominguez on the basis that, in Blackmon, the admonition “connect[ed] the

appointment of counsel with ‘the appeals ([sic]) process’ specifically and exclusively.” Id. ¶ 11

(majority opinion). As noted, the dissent in Blackmon contended that the trial courts in Dominguez

and J.T. “arguably made similar references” to the appellate process. Id. ¶ 27 (Reyes, J.,

dissenting). We are unpersuaded. In Dominguez, the trial court mentioned the right to counsel after

explaining the deadline for appealing if the defendant’s postplea motion were denied. Dominguez,

2012 IL 111336, ¶ 5. Although the admonitions could have been more explicit about the extent of

the right to counsel, at worst, they were simply confusing. In contrast, the admonitions in Blackmon

and this case gave the respective defendants no reason to believe they had any right to counsel to

assist them with postplea motions—for this particular right, their admonitions were worthless.

¶ 25 Although the admonitions in J.T. were similar to those in this case and Blackmon, the

ultimate question in J.T., as the Dominguez court recognized, was not whether the admonitions

complied with Rule 605(c), but whether the circumstances of the case warranted exercise of the

supreme court’s supervisory authority. See id. ¶ 43 n.5; J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 347-48. That question

hinged on considerations of fundamental fairness that did not apply in Blackmon and do not apply

here. The J.T. court concluded only that the admonitions in that case “were sufficient to put [the

respondent] on notice that he could challenge his guilty plea, and that some action on his part

within 30 days was necessary if he wished to appeal.” J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 348. Dominguez indicated

that this language was “informative” of the substantive standard for evaluating compliance with

Rule 605(c). Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 43 n.5. It does not follow, however, that Dominguez

- 14 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

reduced the question of compliance to that simple formula regardless of how far the admonitions

in a particular case depart from the specific requirements of the rule. In our view, Dominguez is

distinguishable here just as it was distinguishable in Blackmon. We further conclude that

Dominguez’s reliance on J.T. does not negate the legal significance of the differences between the

admonitions given in Dominguez and those given here.

¶ 26 Moreover, in Dominguez, the defendant signed a written acknowledgment of his appeal

rights, which recited the language of Rule 605(c) nearly verbatim. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Although the

Dominguez court did not specifically mention the written acknowledgment in its discussion of the

admonition regarding the right to counsel, the court offered the general observation that written

admonishments “can serve to supplement or complement the oral admonishments required under

the rule” and “may inform the court’s analysis of whether a defendant has been substantially

advised under [the rule].” Id. ¶ 27. “[W]ritten admonishments, while not acceptable as a total

substitute for required oral admonishments, can be of value where incomplete oral admonishments

may have been given.” Id. ¶ 30. Arguably, the absence of written admonishments further

distinguishes this case from Dominguez. See Blackmon, 2024 IL App (1st) 220586, ¶ 11 (majority

opinion). But see id. ¶ 25 (Reyes, J., dissenting) (“The supreme court’s finding of substantial

compliance [in Dominguez] was *** reached before its consideration of the written admonishment,

which merely strengthened its conclusion.”).

¶ 27 The State argues that Blackmon is distinguishable because appointed counsel represented

the defendant in that case, whereas here defendant had retained counsel. Nothing in Rule 605(c)

suggests that the sufficiency of admonitions depends on whether the defendant was represented by

retained counsel or appointed counsel when entering a plea. Furthermore, the State offers no

- 15 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

explanation why the distinction is legally significant. Moreover, in its motion to withdraw,

counsel’s firm made clear that it owed no further obligation to defendant.

¶ 28 The State argues that this case is governed by our unpublished order in People v. Aguirre,

2022 IL App (2d) 200598-U, and that the principle of stare decisis counsels that we adhere to

Aguirre’s reasoning. According to the State, “[i]n Aguirre, the trial court admonished the

defendant using the same language as the trial court did in this case.” The argument is wrong on

both counts. First, “[t]he doctrine of stare decisis expresses the policy of the courts to stand by

precedents and not to disturb settled points.” (Emphasis added and internal quotation marks

omitted.) People v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125, 145 (2007). However, although unpublished orders

issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2021) on or after January 1, 2021, may

be cited for persuasive purposes, they are “not precedential except to support contentions of double

jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case” (Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(e)(1) (eff. Jan. 1,

2021)). Because Aguirre was not precedential, the principle of stare decisis does not apply.

¶ 29 Second, contrary to the State’s argument, the admonitions found sufficient in Aguirre

differed significantly from those given here. In Aguirre, the trial court admonished the defendant

as follows:

“ ‘Sir, although you pled guilty, you still have a right to appeal my sentence. If you

decide to do that, you have to file a motion to withdraw your plea in writing in 30 days in

the clerk [sic].

In the motion, you have to set forth all the grounds, the legal grounds that you feel

are appropriate. Anything not in the motion is deemed waived on appeal. I would then have

a hearing. And if I granted your request, all of the charges would be reinstated and set for

trial.

- 16 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

If I denied it, you would have 30 days to file what is called a notice of appeal. If

you could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed and I would get you a free

transcript of everything that you did here.’ ” Aguirre, 2022 IL App (2d) 200598-U, ¶ 6.

Unlike the admonitions in this case and Blackmon, the trial court in Aguirre did not connect the

appointment of counsel specifically and exclusively to the appeal process.

¶ 30 Citing People v. Thompson, 375 Ill. App. 3d 488 (2007), the State argues that, because

defendant has not shown how the deficient admonitions prejudiced him, he is not entitled to relief.

Thompson is inapposite. It dealt with compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 (eff. July

1, 2012), which provides admonitions that must be given before a defendant enters a guilty plea.

Thompson, 375 Ill. App. 3d at 492. Thompson noted that “whether an imperfect admonishment

requires reversal depends on whether real justice has been denied or whether the inadequate

admonishment prejudiced the defendant.” Id. at 493. In contrast, where defective Rule 605(c)

admonitions are given, the defendant is entitled to a remand without showing prejudice. See

Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 21 n.4 (contrasting Rule 605(c) with Illinois Supreme Court Rule

605(a), (b) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) and noting that only Rule 605(a)—which prescribes admonitions

given after judgment and sentence following a not-guilty plea—requires a showing of prejudice

from deficient admonitions before a remand is ordered).

¶ 31 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 32 For the reasons stated, we remand to the trial court for defendant to receive proper

admonitions under Rule 605(c) and for such further proceedings as may be necessary under Rule

604(d).

¶ 33 Remanded with directions.

- 17 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

People v. Cone, 2025 IL App (2d) 240474

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County, No. 23-CF- 2035; the Hon. Donald M. Tegeler Jr., Judge, presiding.

Attorneys James E. Chadd, Christopher McCoy, and Sade V. Edwards, of for State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant. Appellant:

Attorneys Jamie L. Mosser, State’s Attorney, of St. Charles (Patrick for Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and Kristina L. Jackson, of State’s Appellee: Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

- 18 -