People Ex Rel. Alvarez v. Skryd
241 Ill. 2d 34
| Ill. | 2011Background
- State's Attorney seeks writ of mandamus or prohibition to undo circuit court order vacating a 12-year-old guilty plea by defendant Loza.
- Loza pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of cannabis in 1998; the court accepted the plea with limited admonishments and time served.
- In 2010 Loza moved to withdraw the guilty plea and vacate the conviction, alleging lack of Rule 605(c) appeal rights admonishment and resulting immigration consequences.
- Circuit court granted the untimely motion to withdraw; State sought reconsideration and argued lack of jurisdiction due to Rule 604(d)’s 30-day limit.
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) requires a post-plea motion to withdraw within 30 days to preserve appeal; lack of timely motion generally divests the circuit court of jurisdiction.
- The court ultimately held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and that Egge’s admonition-based exception no longer applies; mandamus to rescind and dismiss granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the circuit court have jurisdiction to entertain an untimely Rule 604(d) motion? | State argues motion beyond 30 days; lacks jurisdiction. | Loza argues Rule 605 admonishment issues could salvage untimely filing. | No jurisdiction; untimely Rule 604(d) motion barred. |
| Does the Rule 605 admonition exception revive circuit court jurisdiction for an untimely Rule 604(d) motion? | Admonition defect allows exception and revival. | Admonition exception may permit appeal despite timing. | Admonition exception is inapplicable; no revival of jurisdiction. |
| Has Egge been retained as controlling law for Rule 604(d) admonition exceptions? | Egge supports admission of exception. | Egge must be reconciled with later decisions. | Egge overruled sub silentio; not controlling. |
| Is mandamus an appropriate remedy to require rescission of the order and dismissal of the motion? | State seeks mandamus to restore proper jurisdiction and dismiss. | Defense contends no remedy necessary if merits moot. | Writ of mandamus awarded; order rescinded and motion dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Did the circuit court's lack of Rule 605(admonishments) affect due process in a negotiated guilty plea | Failure to admonish could implicate due process and require remand. | Remand not warranted given lack of timely Rule 604(d) motion. | Despite admonishment failures, jurisdictional defects foreclose relief; not remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (2003) (Rule 604(d) dismissal when more than 30 days; admonition framework)
- People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93 (1988) (purpose of Rule 604(d) to allow timely fact-finding and correction)
- People v. Lyles, 217 Ill.2d 210 (2005) (enforces procedural rules; admonitions mesh with due process)
- People v. Jones, 213 Ill.2d 498 (2004) (addressed admonition and jurisdictional issues post-plea)
- People v. Egge, 194 Ill.App.3d 712 (1990) (admonition exception recognized prior to later overruling)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill.2d 149 (1993) (jurisdictional analysis in post-judgment motions)