People v. Bailey
2014 IL 115459
| Ill. | 2014Background
- In March 2007 Christopher B. Bailey (then 17) pled guilty to criminal sexual abuse; he was fined and jailed, and the trial court said there was no sex-offender registration sentence.
- More than three years later (Oct. 2010) Bailey moved to vacate his plea and sentence, claiming the judgment was void because registration should have been ordered.
- The State responded on the merits, arguing the plea and sentence were not void; the trial court denied Bailey’s motion on the merits.
- Bailey appealed; the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the revestment doctrine. This Court granted leave to appeal.
- Central legal question: whether the revestment doctrine can revest a trial court with jurisdiction when one party (here, the State) actively opposes altering the prior judgment, even if it did not object to timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Bailey’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revestment doctrine revested the trial court with jurisdiction over Bailey’s >3-year-late motion | Revestment should be abolished or inapplicable; Flowers requires finality; State actively opposed altering judgment so revestment did not occur | Revestment applies because parties actively participated and the State did not object to timeliness, so proceedings were inconsistent with prior judgment | Revestment requires three independent elements; because the State actively opposed altering the judgment, revestment did not occur and the trial court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether failure to object to timeliness alone is sufficient for revestment | Failure to object does not satisfy the “inconsistent with prior judgment” prong; Flowers precludes curing jurisdiction by consent | Lack of a timeliness objection should be enough (otherwise “without objection” is meaningless) | Reversed: failure to object alone is insufficient; all three Kaeding elements must be met independently |
| Whether the appellate court’s dismissal was the proper disposition | Appellate court correctly found no revestment, but should vacate trial court’s void merits ruling instead of dismissing the appeal | Bailey sought merits review; appellate dismissal leaves trial court’s void merits ruling intact (wrong outcome) | Appellate judgment affirmed as modified: appellate court should have vacated the trial court’s merits ruling and ordered the postjudgment motion dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether revestment doctrine should be abolished in criminal cases | Revestment should be retained; stare decisis and constitutional court powers support narrow exception | State urged abolition because it conflicts with jurisdictional finality in criminal cases | Court refused to abolish revestment but reiterated it is a narrow exception with strict requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kaeding, 98 Ill. 2d 237 (recognizing narrow revestment rule and setting three-element test)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (jurisdiction to reconsider judgments generally expires; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Sears v. Sears, 85 Ill. 2d 253 (revestment inapplicable where a party opposed reopening the judgment)
- Bannister, People v., 236 Ill. 2d 1 (applied revestment where parties actively sought to overturn prior conviction)
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536 (revestment inapplicable where conduct showed no willingness to set aside judgment)
- People v. Bainter, 126 Ill. 2d 292 (discussing circumstances where revestment may be warranted)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149 (trial court judgment entered without jurisdiction is void)
- People ex rel. Alvarez v. Skryd, 241 Ill. 2d 34 (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal)