People v. White

Opinion

2026 IL App (1st) 240469-U No. 1-24-0469

Order filed September 9, 2026 Third Division

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).

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.

)

v. ) No. 18 CR 4358 )

JESSIE WHITE, ) Honorable ) Angela M. Petrone,

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Lampkin and Martin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We dismiss this appeal when this court lacked jurisdiction to allow defendant’s motion to amend the notice of appeal and defendant’s original notice of appeal did not identify a final order.

¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Jessie White (also referred to as Jesse White in the record) was found guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(1) (West 2012)) and aggravated kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(3) (West 2012)) and sentenced to a total of 40 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping should be vacated when the victim’s asportation was “merely incidental” to the aggravated

2

criminal sexual assault and the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to secretly confine the victim. Defendant further contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of unlawful restraint. We dismiss because we lacked jurisdiction to allow defendant’s motion to amend the notice of appeal and the original notice of appeal did not identify a final order.

¶3 We set forth only the background and facts necessary to our disposition of this appeal.

¶4 Defendant was charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping predicated on “criminal sexual assault.”

¶5 D.C. testified that in August 2012, she was 18 years old. As she walked across an alley on the way to school on August 24, 2012, defendant, whom she identified in court, grabbed her hair from behind. Defendant, who held a metal object that D.C. believed was a meat thermometer, told D.C. to “get into the f*** alley.” She complied because she was scared.

¶6 When they reached a garage, defendant pulled down D.C.’s pants and thrust his “erect penis” between her “butt cheeks.” Defendant held the meat thermometer to D.C.’s neck and also held her hair. D.C. felt defendant’s penis touch her anus. Defendant thrust for approximately three minutes and ejaculated. Defendant pushed D.C. against the garage and told her not to move or he would “f*** kill” her. After defendant left, D.C. ran to school. During cross-examination, D.C. testified that she was unsure how long it took to move from the sidewalk to the alley; it “felt” like 30 seconds but could have been less time.

¶7 The State adduced additional evidence regarding, inter alia, D.C.’s outcry to another student and forensic evidence that defendant’s DNA profile was included in the sperm fraction located on an anal swab administered to D.C. Evidence also established that defendant had prior convictions for attempted murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated battery. Pursuant to the

3

State’s motion in limine to admit proof of other crimes, A.M. testified that on June 10, 2014, defendant pulled her into a basement where he smashed her head onto the floor, stated that he would kill her, and strangled her until she lost consciousness.

¶8 On April 27, 2023, the jury found defendant guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping.

¶9 Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and a supplement to the motion alleging, relevant here, that (1) the State failed to prove that he intended to secretly confine D.C. and (2) the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s request to instruct the jury on unlawful restraint. The trial court denied the motion.

¶ 10 On December 19, 2023, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 45-year prison term for aggravated criminal sexual assault and a consecutive 6-year term for aggravated kidnapping. After informing defendant of his appellate rights, the trial court asked trial counsel, “are you asking me at this time to reconsider the sentence.” Trial counsel replied, “yes.” The State did not object to this oral motion. The trial court stated, “[t]hat’s respectfully denied.”

¶ 11 On January 3, 2024, trial counsel filed a written motion to reconsider sentence.

¶ 12 On January 10, 2024, the trial court noted that counsel’s motion to reconsider sentence was “filed within 30 days of the sentence,” and continued the case.

¶ 13 On January 29, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the written motion to reconsider sentence. Following argument, the court modified defendant’s sentence to 34 years for aggravated criminal sexual assault and a consecutive 6-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping.

¶ 14 On February 21, 2024, defendant’s notice of appeal was filed in the circuit court. The notice identified the subject judgment as the verdict of guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping and listed the date of judgment as April 27, 2023.

4

¶ 15 On November 1, 2024, defendant filed a motion to amend the notice of appeal to “correct the judgment date.” On November 6, 2024, we allowed defendant’s motion, and on November 14, 20024, defendant’s amended notice of appeal from the order of January 29, 2024, was filed in this court.

¶ 16 On appeal, defendant contends that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping must be vacated when (1) D.C.’s asportation was “merely incidental” to the aggravated sexual assault and (2) the State failed to establish that he intended to secretly confine D.C. He further contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on unlawful restraint.

¶ 17 Before reaching the merits of defendant’s contentions, however, we must consider our jurisdiction. See People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2008) (“A reviewing court has an independent duty to consider issues of jurisdiction, regardless of whether either party has raised them.”).

¶ 18 Supreme Court Rule 606(b) provides that, in criminal cases, “the notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from or if a motion directed against the judgment is timely filed, within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the motion.” Ill. S.

Ct. R. 606(b) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023).

¶ 19 Per Supreme Court Rule 606(d), “the notice of appeal may be amended as provided in Rule 303(b)(5).” Ill. S. Ct. R. 606(d) (eff. Dec. 7, 2023).

¶ 20 Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(5) states that a “notice of appeal may be amended without leave of court within the original 30-day period to file the notice.” Ill. S. Ct. R 303(b)(5) (eff Jul. 1, 2017). “Thereafter it may be amended only on motion, in the reviewing court, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this rule.” Id.

5

¶ 21 Supreme Court Rule 303(d), in turn, allows an additional 30-day period in which the reviewing court may grant leave to file an amended notice of appeal upon motion “supported by a showing of reasonable excuse.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(d) (eff. Jul. 1, 2017). Once Rule 303(d)’s additional 30-day period “has lapsed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to permit any further amendment of the notice of appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356, ¶ 16.

¶ 22 Here, defendant filed a notice of appeal on February 21, 2024. He sought leave to amend the notice of appeal in November 2024, more than eight months after initiating his appeal, well beyond the amendment period permitted by Rule 303. See Ill. S. Ct. R 303(b)(5), (d) (eff Jul. 1, 2017).

¶ 23 Because defendant’s motion for leave to amend the appeal was filed “well after the additional 30-day period,” this court had “no jurisdiction to allow that motion,” and only has “jurisdiction as conferred by the defendant’s original notice of appeal.” Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356,

¶ 16. Moreover, we may not excuse the filing requirements of our supreme court’s rules governing appeals. Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 217-18 (2009).

¶ 24 Thus, we must vacate our November 6, 2024, order allowing defendant leave to amend his notice of appeal for lack of jurisdiction and strike the amended notice of appeal. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356, ¶ 16.

¶ 25 We now turn to defendant’s February 21, 2024, notice of appeal.

¶ 26 “In criminal cases, ‘[a] notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on an appellate court to consider only the judgments or parts of judgments specified in the notice.’ ” (Emphases omitted.) People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, ¶ 16 (quoting People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 37 (2009)).

6

¶ 27 Defendant’s February 21, 2024, notice of appeal specified April 27, 2023, as the subject judgment appealed from. The record reveals, however, that April 27, 2023, was the date of the jury’s verdict. A guilty verdict is not the final judgment; rather, “[i]n criminal cases, the final judgment is the sentence.” People v. Vara, 2018 IL 121823, ¶ 14.

¶ 28 This court has jurisdiction only to review final orders. See People v. Harrison, 372 Ill. App. 3d 153, 155 (2007) (“In a criminal case, there is no final judgment until the imposition of sentence, and, in the absence of that final judgment, an appeal cannot be entertained except as specified in Supreme Court Rule 604 [(eff. Jul. 1, 2006)].”); Hawes v. Luhr Brothers, Inc., 212 Ill. 2d 93, 106 (2004) (“Unless specifically authorized by supreme court rules, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to review judgments, orders, or decrees that are not final.”). Thus, because defendant’s February 21, 2024, notice of appeal did not identify a final order, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal.

¶ 29 For these reasons, we vacate our November 6, 2024, order allowing defendant’s motion to amend his appeal, strike the amended notice of appeal, and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 30 Appeal dismissed.