People v. Aguirre
2022 IL App (2d) 200598-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Defendant Jose L. Aguirre pleaded guilty in October 2019 to attempted first-degree murder pursuant to a partially negotiated plea (State dismissed aggravated domestic battery count; sentence cap 23 years); a Spanish interpreter was present.
- At plea the court found the plea voluntary, received a factual basis (defendant ran down his ex‑girlfriend with an SUV), and noted defendant’s age, limited education, medication use, and substance‑use history.
- On February 10, 2020 the court sentenced Aguirre to 20 years and gave oral postplea admonitions stating he had a right to appeal but must file a written motion to withdraw his plea within 30 days; if granted, charges would be reinstated and set for trial; counsel/transcript would be provided if indigent.
- Private counsel withdrew; a public defender was appointed to handle any postplea motions. Aguirre told appointed counsel he did not want to move to withdraw the plea; counsel nonetheless filed a motion to supplement sentencing evidence (not a Rule 604(d) motion).
- The trial court denied the postsentencing motion. Aguirre appealed without having filed a Rule 604(d) motion to withdraw his plea, claiming the Rule 605(c) admonitions were inadequate.
- The appellate court held the oral admonitions substantially complied with Rule 605(c), so Aguirre’s failure to file the Rule 604(d) motion required dismissal of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Aguirre's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court substantially complied with Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) when giving postplea admonitions | Admonitions conveyed the rule’s essence: right to appeal, must file motion to withdraw plea within 30 days, counsel/transcript available if indigent | Admonitions were deficient/confusing: did not say motion must ask to vacate the judgment or that both judgment and sentence would be vacated; counsel appointment wording was misleading | Substantial compliance: admonitions conveyed essence; requirement to file a motion to withdraw was made clear; appellate remedy not available |
| Whether failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion mandates dismissal of the appeal | Dismissal required because defendant was properly admonished and did not file the requisite postplea motion | Should be excused because admonitions were insufficient and left defendant unaware of the prerequisite | Dismissal required — Rule 604(d) prerequisite not met and admonition exception does not apply |
| Whether lack of a Rule 604(d) certificate from appointed counsel undermines the record | Certificate unnecessary because no postplea motion was filed; record shows counsel consulted defendant | Lack of certificate suggests counsel may not have properly consulted defendant about grounds | Certificate is inconsequential here; record contains statements that counsel consulted and defendant declined to withdraw plea |
| Whether admonitions regarding appointment of counsel were misleading | Statements were sufficient under Dominguez and counsel was in fact appointed to assist postplea | Statements could be read to imply counsel available only after appeal, causing confusion | Admonitions were sufficient; appointment occurred and record shows defendant understood his options |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (2003) (failure to file Rule 604(d) motion requires dismissal absent due‑process exception)
- People v. Jamison, 181 Ill.2d 24 (1998) (if court substantially complies with Rule 605(c), appeal must be dismissed for lack of a Rule 604(d) motion)
- People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336 (2012) (trial court need not use verbatim language of Rule 605(c); must convey the rule’s essence)
- In re J.T., 221 Ill.2d 338 (2006) (oral admonitions can suffice to convey Rule 605(c) substance)
- People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App.3d 872 (2003) (oral admonitions may be adequate despite not reciting rule verbatim)