People v. Bailey, 4 N.E.3d 474

Defendant Christopher B. Bailey pled guilty in March 2007 to criminal sexual abuse of his 16-year-old girlfriend; sentence included $100 fine and 300 days in county jail with credit for time served; court initially ordered no registration requirement.
In October 2010 Bailey moved to vacate the plea and sentence, arguing voidness due to mandatory sex offender registration; State argued the plea was not void.
Trial court denied the motion on the merits; Bailey appealed challenging the disposition under the revestment doctrine.
Appellate court dismissed Bailey’s appeal, and Bailey petitioned for review; this Court granted leave to consider the revestment doctrine’s scope and application.
The central issue is whether the revestment doctrine can revest a court with jurisdiction when a postjudgment motion is untimely and the prior judgment is final, and whether the State’s opposition to modification bars revestment.
The Court ultimately holds that revestment requires three criteria and that here the State’s opposition to alteration precluded revestment; appellate court’s dismissal is affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revestment doctrine applies here	Bailey: doctrine applies since both parties actively participated and proceedings were inconsistent with the prior judgment	People: doctrine should not apply due to lack of inconsistency or opposition by State	No; doctrine not satisfied; appellate court properly held no revestment
Whether failure to object to untimeliness suffices for revestment	Bailey: lack of objection is one Kaeding requirement	People: untimeliness alone can sustain revestment with consistent actions	No; need all Kaeding elements, including inconsistency and positions opposing the prior judgment
Remedy if revestment not triggered	Bailey: trial court’s merits ruling void; appellate court should vacate and remand	People: dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction to address merits	Trial court’s merits ruling void; appellate court should vacate judgment and dismiss Bailey’s motion

Kaeding, 98 Ill.2d 237 (1983) (established three Kaeding requirements for revestment: active participation, without objection, in proceedings inconsistent with the merits of the prior judgment)
Sears v. Sears, 85 Ill.2d 253 (1981) (revestment not triggered when proceedings not inconsistent with the judgment; party opposed modification or sought to preserve finality)
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill.2d 536 (1984) (revestment not applied where nothing implied willingness to overturn the judgment)
Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (2003) (consent/waiver principles do not equate to revestment; finality rule remains strong)
Minniti, 373 Ill. App.3d 55 (2007) (appellate view that proceedings can be inconsistent even if one side supports adherence to the judgment)
Bannister, 236 Ill.2d 1 (2009) (state’s new plea agreement with co-defendant; revestment applied where both parties sought to modify the prior conviction)
Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (2003) (narrowly discusses jurisdictional limits and non-waivable nature of subject matter jurisdiction)