People v. Howell

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 5-25-0629
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 250629-U NOTICE Decision filed 06/30/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-25-0629 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Macon County. ) v. ) No. 24-CF-824 ) TRIMARION D. HOWELL, ) Honorable ) Thomas E. Griffith Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE HACKETT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Barberis and Boie concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Where the trial court did not substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024) when admonishing the defendant during sentencing, we remand for proper admonishments and the opportunity for the defendant to file new postplea motions.

¶2 The defendant, Trimarion D. Howell, pled guilty to first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-

1(a)(1) (West 2022)) and was thereafter sentenced to 45 years in prison. The defendant then sought

to withdraw his guilty plea, which the circuit court of Macon County denied. On appeal, the

defendant contends that the trial court failed to properly admonish him in accordance with Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024), or alternatively, his postplea counsel failed to

comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). For the reasons that follow,

1 we remand the cause for proper Rule 605(b) admonishments and the opportunity for the defendant

to file new postplea motions.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On May 8, 2024, the State charged the defendant by information with four counts of first

degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) (West 2022)), one count of aggravated battery

with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)), one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-

1.2(a)(2)), one count of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5),

(a)(3)(C)), and one count of attempted armed robbery (id. §§ 8-4(a), 18-2(a)(3)). In addition, in

case No. 24-CF-814, the State charged the defendant with attempted first degree murder, armed

robbery, aggravated robbery, attempted armed robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The

charges in the present case and case No. 24-CF-814 stemmed from separate incidents occurring

approximately two weeks apart.

¶5 On May 8, 2025, the defendant pled guilty to an amended count of first degree murder,

which removed any language that would require the trial court to impose a mandatory 25-year

firearm enhancement. In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.

There was no agreement between the State and the defense as to sentencing. At the hearing, defense

counsel indicated that the plea was an open plea with no firearm enhancement, but the trial court

responded that the plea was a partial plea since the State had agreed to limit the penalties. However,

the trial court then later indicated that the plea was open as to sentencing. After questioning the

defendant and hearing the factual basis for the plea, the trial court found that the guilty plea was

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.

¶6 On May 16, 2025, the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea,

indicating that his counsel convinced him to plead guilty, but he wanted to go to trial. The

2 defendant also indicated that when he pled guilty, he was under the impression that he would not

be subject to a sentencing range of 20 to 60 years in prison and would only be sentenced to 20

years in prison.

¶7 On June 18, 2025, the trial court held the sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the trial court

questioned whether the guilty plea was an open or partial plea, and the State responded that it was

an open plea. Also at the hearing, the trial court addressed the defendant’s pro se motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Addressing the defendant, the trial court explained that the defendant had

an “absolute right” to withdraw his guilty plea but that he could not seek to withdraw the plea until

after sentencing, which was when final judgment was entered. The trial court explained that the

sentence would be imposed at this hearing and then the defendant would have 30 days to refile his

motion. Thus, the trial court struck the defendant’s pro se motion as premature. The trial court then

proceeded with the sentencing hearing. Defense counsel advised that although the defendant had

not cooperated in the preparation of the presentence investigation report (PSI), the defendant was

not interested in continuing the sentencing hearing for another opportunity to cooperate in the

PSI’s preparation or to gather witnesses to testify on his behalf. Thus, defense counsel explained

that if the defendant did not wish to cooperate in the PSI’s preparation and did not have any

witnesses to testify in mitigation, continuing the present hearing was unnecessary.

¶8 The State then presented its evidence in aggravation and the victim impact statements. The

defendant did not present any mitigating evidence and did not make a statement in allocution. After

hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 45 years in prison to be

followed by a 3-year term of mandatory supervised release. The trial court then admonished the

defendant as follows:

3 “Understand, even though I’ve imposed sentence, that you still have the right to appeal. If

you wish to appeal within 30 days of today’s date, you have to file a written motion asking

to withdraw your plea of guilty. In the motion, you have to set forth any errors this Court

made in accepting your plea. If the errors are not set forth in the written motion, they’re

deemed to have been waived.

The motion would then be set for hearing. At the hearing, if the motion is granted,

your plea and judgment would be vacated, the penalty would be vacated, any charges that

were dismissed pursuant to your plea agreement could be reinstated, your case or cases

would be reset for trial, and we’d start this process all over again.

On the other hand, if the motion is denied, then within 30 days of that date, 30 days

of today’s date, you would have to file your written notice of appeal with our clerk’s office.

Your case would be appealed to the appellate court in Mt. Vernon. If you’re indigent, a

transcript will be prepared of all proceedings at no cost to yourself, appellate counsel will

be appointed to assist you in the appeal process, and trial counsel would be appointed to

assist you with any post-plea motions.”

¶9 On July 10, 2025, the defendant, through his counsel, filed a motion to withdraw guilty

plea, indicating that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made. Counsel also

filed a certificate pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). Thereafter,

on July 18, 2025, the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Subsequently, a

new public defender took over the defendant’s representation.

¶ 10 On August 4, 2025, the defendant’s counsel filed an amended motion to withdraw the

defendant’s guilty plea, contending that the defendant’s plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or

voluntarily made because the defendant’s plea counsel did not fully explain the plea agreement

4 and thus the defendant did not understand that he would be subject to a sentencing range. Counsel

also argued that the defendant believed that his plea counsel coerced him into accepting the plea

and that he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea without establishing certain legal criteria or

having a hearing. Alternatively, counsel argued that the defendant should receive a new sentencing

hearing where the defendant’s plea counsel failed to object to the State introducing evidence and

a victim impact statement from the dismissed attempted murder charge in case No. 24-CF-814, as

such evidence was considered by the trial court in determining the defendant’s sentence. Thus, the

defendant requested that his guilty plea be withdrawn; his dismissed charges be reinstated; and a

jury trial, or alternatively, a new sentencing hearing, be held. Counsel also filed a certificate in

compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 11 Also on August 4, the trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s amended motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. At the hearing, the defendant testified about the allegations contained in

his amended motion. In rebuttal, the defendant’s plea counsel testified about the circumstances

surrounding the defendant accepting the plea deal and about the defendant’s plea being knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily made. After hearing the testimony and counsels’ arguments, the trial

court denied the defendant’s amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea and also determined that

the evidence from the dismissed charge was relevant and admissible at the sentencing hearing. The

trial court then asked defense counsel whether a motion had been filed regarding the sentence, and

counsel responded that the motion was incorporated into the motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Thereafter, on August 6, 2025, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court’s postplea admonishments did not

substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024), and therefore

5 his case should be remanded to the trial court for proper admonishments. Alternatively, the

defendant argues that his postplea counsel failed to strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 14 Rule 604(d) governs the procedure to be followed when a defendant appeals from a

judgment entered on a plea of guilty. Rule 604(d) states in relevant 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

a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence is being challenged, or, if the plea

is being challenged, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.” Ill.

S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 15 Since a defendant’s failure to comply with Rule 604(d) can result in the loss of the right to

a direct appeal, Rule 605(b) has been adopted to ensure that a defendant knows of the Rule 604(d)

requirements for an appeal from a sentence imposed upon a plea of guilty. People v. Foster, 171

Ill. 2d 469, 472 (1996); People v. Green, 332 Ill. App. 3d 481, 484 (2002). Rule 605(b) requires a

trial court to give a defendant certain admonishments, at the time of sentencing, when the

defendant has entered into a non-negotiated guilty plea. Specifically, Rule 605(b) instructs as

follows:

“In all cases in which a judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty, other than 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

6 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;

(3) that if the motion is allowed, the sentence will be modified or 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 reconsider the sentence or to

vacate the judgment and to withdraw the plea of guilty shall be deemed waived.

For the purposes of this rule, a negotiated plea 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.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(b) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 16 Although Rule 605(b) admonishments are mandatory, the trial court is not required to read

the rule verbatim. People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, ¶ 22. Rather, the trial court must

substantially comply with the rule by conveying the substance or essence of the rule to the

defendant. Id. A trial court’s admonishments substantially comply with Rule 605(b) where the

7 defendant is properly informed, or put on notice, of what he must do to preserve his right to appeal

his guilty plea or sentence. Id. This court reviews de novo whether the trial court has complied

with the admonishment requirements of Rule 605(b). People v. Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d 1126, 1127

(2009).

¶ 17 Here, at the plea hearing, there seemed to be some confusion as to whether the defendant

was entering into an open or partial plea. However, we find, and the State agrees, that since the

State did not make any sentencing concessions in the plea agreement, the defendant’s plea was not

negotiated. Thus, at sentencing, the trial court was required to admonish the defendant in

accordance with Rule 605(b).

¶ 18 The defendant contends that the trial court’s admonishments failed to substantially comply

with Rule 605(b) because the trial court failed to admonish him of the necessity of filing a motion

to reconsider his sentence as a prerequisite to challenging his sentence on appeal. However, the

State argues that the trial court did substantially comply with Rule 605(b) where it imparted the

essence of the rule and the requirements necessary for perfecting an appeal. Specifically, the State

notes that the trial court admonished the defendant that he needed to file a written motion detailing

any error, or the error would be waived. The State also notes that since the defendant’s plea was

not negotiated, he could file a motion to reconsider his sentence or a motion to withdraw his guilty

plea. The State indicates that although defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea, counsel

requested, in that motion, that the defendant be allowed a new sentencing hearing to reconsider his

sentence. Thus, the State argues that because the trial court substantially complied with the Rule

605(b) requirements, and defense counsel argued both for withdrawal of the guilty plea and

reconsideration of the defendant’s sentence, we should find that there was no error. We disagree

with the State.

8 ¶ 19 The record demonstrates that the trial court only admonished the defendant regarding the

necessity of filing a motion to withdraw his guilty plea as a prerequisite to challenging his plea on

appeal. The trial court did not provide any admonishments regarding the necessity of filing a

motion to reconsider the sentence as a prerequisite to challenging his sentence on appeal.

Additionally, the defendant was not informed that if the motion to reconsider his sentence was

allowed, his sentence would be modified. In failing to advise the defendant of what he must do to

preserve his right to challenge his sentence, the trial court did not substantially comply with Rule

605(b). See People v. Perry, 2014 IL App (1st) 122584, ¶ 16 (admonishments that fail to reference

certain portions of Rule 605 are inadequate). In light of the restrictions placed on a defendant by

Rule 604(d), a defendant’s appeal rights are compromised by a trial court’s failure to comply with

Rule 605(b). People v. Williams, 344 Ill. App. 3d 334, 340 (2003). Thus, remand is necessary, not

merely because of the failure to comply with Rule 605(b), but because failure to give the required

admonishments is prejudicial and results in a violation of the concepts of fundamental fairness. Id.

Accordingly, we remand the cause for proper admonishments in compliance with Rule 605(b) and

the opportunity for the defendant to file new postplea motions. See People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d

24, 29-30 (1998) (the appropriate remedy for insufficient Rule 605(b) admonitions is remand for

proceedings consistent with the rule). As we are remanding for compliance with Rule 605(b), we

need not address the defendant’s alternative argument that postplea counsel failed to comply with

Rule 604(d).

¶ 20 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 21 For the reasons stated, we remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this

order.

9 ¶ 22 Cause remanded.