People v. Denhalter

2024 IL App (5th) 231135-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: July 23, 2024
• Docket: 5-23-1135
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (5th) 231135-U NOTICE NOTICE Decision filed 07/23/24. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-1135 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the

Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE limited circumstances allowed the same. under Rule 23(e)(1). APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Vermilion County. ) v. ) No. 23-CF-422 ) KRISTIN DENHALTER, ) Honorable ) Charles C. Hall, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE BOIE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Moore concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Dismissal of the defendant’s appeal is proper and review of the appeal on the merits is precluded by the defendant’s failure to file a timely motion to withdraw her guilty plea pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d). As any arguments to the contrary would lack merit, we grant the defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal leave to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

¶2 Defendant Kristin Denhalter entered into a negotiated plea of guilty on one count of felony

violating an order of protection in exchange for being sentenced to two years in the Illinois

Department of Corrections (IDOC) and four years of mandatory supervised release. She would

serve 50% of the sentence and receive credit for time served. She did not file any postplea motions,

but instead filed a notice of appeal. Her appointed appellate counsel, the Office of the State

Appellate Defender (OSAD), has moved to withdraw, concluding that her appeal presents no

issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has notified the

1 defendant of the motion, and she has filed a response. After considering the record on appeal,

OSAD’s motion and supporting memorandum, and the defendant’s response, we agree that this

appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. Accordingly, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and

dismiss the appeal.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 In April 2023, the defendant was served with an order of protection naming her parents as

protected parties and the parents’ home as a protected address. Prior to the events of the underlying

case, she incurred two misdemeanor convictions for violating the order. She received sentences of

18 months of probation and 12 months conditional discharge, respectively. As a result of the

present case, the State filed a motion for both of the prior sentences to be terminated

unsatisfactorily, which the circuit court granted.

¶5 In the underlying case, the defendant was charged with violation of an order of protection

(subsequent offense), a Class 4 felony. The indictment alleged that she was present at a protected

address and had previously been convicted of violation of an order of protection.

¶6 According to the pretrial investigation report, on July 19, 2023, the day of her second

misdemeanor conviction for violating the order, the defendant reported to probation services and

went to a women’s shelter. The shelter had no available beds, and the defendant then went to her

parents’ house. When her parents returned home, they contacted the police and the defendant was

arrested and charged.

¶7 The State filed a motion to deny pretrial release, arguing that the defendant posed a real

and present threat to her parents and no combination of conditions could mitigate the threat to their

safety. The court granted the motion, finding that the dangerousness standard was met because the

2 defendant violated a protection order and threatened her parents on the same day that she was

convicted of her second misdemeanor violation of the order.

¶8 On October 10, 2023, the court was informed that the defendant would enter into a

negotiated plea. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the defendant would plead guilty to one

count of violation of an order of protection, a Class 4 felony, and would be sentenced to two years

in the IDOC and four years of mandatory supervised release. She would be eligible for day-for-

day good conduct credit and would receive credit for time served. The defendant confirmed that

she was aware of the terms of the agreement.

¶9 The circuit court informed her of the charge against her and explained the nature of the

allegations. The court further explained that the offense was punishable by one to three years in

the IDOC, followed by four years of mandatory supervised release. The defendant stated that she

understood.

¶ 10 The court then explained that she had the following rights: to persist in her plea of not

guilty, to plead not guilty, or to plead guilty; to a jury or bench trial; to confront and cross-examine

the State’s witnesses; to subpoena her own witnesses; to testify or remain silent; and to have the

State prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She was further informed that by pleading guilty,

she would be giving up those rights. The defendant confirmed that she understood and that she had

signed the negotiated plea.

¶ 11 The State’s factual basis was that the defendant was served with a copy of the protection

order prior to this offense. She was identified as the person present at a protected address relating

to the order of protection case and had previously been convicted of two misdemeanor violations

of an order of protection. The defendant stipulated that this was the testimony that the State’s

3 witnesses would provide if the case went to trial. The State provided the defendant’s criminal

history; defense counsel and the State waived a presentence investigation.

¶ 12 The circuit court accepted the guilty plea and found it was knowing, voluntary, and

supported by a factual basis. The court then admonished the defendant regarding her right to

appeal, reading her the requirements for an appeal from a negotiated guilty plea pursuant to Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023). The defendant confirmed that she understood.

¶ 13 The defendant did not file any postplea motions. She instead filed a notice of appeal, and

OSAD was appointed as appellate counsel.

¶ 14 ANALYSIS

¶ 15 OSAD argues that this court is precluded from considering the appeal on the merits because

the defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea, and there are no meritorious

arguments to the contrary. Counsel therefore moves to withdraw.

¶ 16 OSAD first contends that the defendant has failed to comply with the procedures for

appealing a judgment entered upon a negotiated guilty plea set forth in Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 604(d). Rule 604(d) states in relevant part that “[n]o appeal shall be taken upon a negotiated

plea of guilty *** unless the defendant, within 30 days of the imposition of sentence, files a motion

to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Sept. 18, 2023).

Compliance with Rule 604(d) “is a condition precedent to an appeal from a judgment on a plea of

guilty.” People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 300-01 (2003). While failure to file a timely Rule

604(d) motion in the circuit court will not deprive us of jurisdiction over an appeal, it does preclude

us from considering the appeal on the merits. Id. at 301.

¶ 17 OSAD further argues that the admonition exception does not apply in the present matter

because the court sufficiently admonished the defendant pursuant to Rule 605(c). The admonition

4 exception provides that we may consider an appeal despite the defendant’s noncompliance with

Rule 604(d) where the circuit court failed to give sufficient Rule 605 admonitions. See People v.

Foster, 171 Ill. 2d 469, 427-74 (1996); People v. Gougisha, 347 Ill. App. 3d 158, 161 (2004).

¶ 18 In order to give sufficient admonishments, the court need not read the rule verbatim, but

rather must “must impart to a defendant largely that which is specified in the rule” by

communicating the rule’s “essence.” People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 19. The court has

substantially complied with Rule 605(c) if 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. ¶ 22.

¶ 19 Rule 605(c) states, in relevant part, as follows:

“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 with 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. Sept. 18, 2023).

¶ 20 In the present matter, the circuit court informed the defendant that, prior to filing a notice

of appeal, she was required to file in the circuit court, within 30 days, a written motion asking to

vacate the judgment and for leave to withdraw the guilty plea, setting forth the grounds for the

motion. The court further stated that, if her motion was allowed, the plea and sentence would be

5 vacated, and a trial date would be set on the charges to which she pled guilty. Any charges that

were dismissed as part of the plea could be reinstated and set for trial upon the State’s request. The

court also informed her that, if indigent, a copy of the transcripts of the plea and sentencing would

be provided without cost, and counsel would be appointed to assist with the preparation of the

motions. The court concluded by explaining that any issue or claim of error not raised in the motion

would be deemed waived.

¶ 21 In response to OSAD’s motion, the defendant raises two issues. First, she claims that there

is no proof that she threatened her parents. Second, she states that the court ordered her to wear an

ankle monitor but did not provide her with the monitor prior to her release; she therefore argues

that she should be relieved from violating this order.

¶ 22 Upon review, we find that the defendant’s arguments do not address the relevant question

of whether her failure to comply with Rule 604(d) precludes us from considering her appeal on the

merits. She does not dispute that she did not file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea prior to filing

her notice of appeal. She does not claim that the court failed to sufficiently admonish her on the

requirements of appeal set forth in Rule 605(c), and we find that the court did indeed satisfy its

obligation to do so. The admonishments it provided substantially conformed to the language of the

rule, and properly put the defendant on notice of the requirements for appeal. Therefore, the

admonishment exception does not apply to excuse her failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion.

¶ 23 We conclude that we may not consider her appeal on the merits where the defendant failed

to comply with Rule 604(d) prior to seeking appeal from a judgment entered on a negotiated plea

of guilty.

6 ¶ 24 CONCLUSION

¶ 25 As this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and

¶ 26 Motion granted; appeal dismissed.