People v. Whitehurst

2023 IL App (3d) 220401-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 22, 2023
• Docket: 3-22-0401
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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-U

Order filed August 22, 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

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.