People v. Bailey, 2012 IL App (2d) 110209

Bailey pled guilty to criminal sexual abuse on March 14, 2007 and was sentenced to 300 days with time served credit.
On October 7, 2010 Bailey filed an untimely motion to vacate his plea and sentence as void.
State answered but did not challenge timeliness; trial court denied the motion on January 28, 2011.
Bailey filed a notice of appeal on February 25, 2011 challenging revestment jurisdiction and Rule 604(d) compliance.
Court held timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional; untimely postplea motion means no revestment; appeal dismissed.
Dissent argues revestment doctrine should apply differently and questions the majority’s approach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was revested with jurisdiction	Bailey	People argues no revestment under Flowers; timely jurisdiction not regained	Appeal dismissed for lack of revested jurisdiction.
Whether the Rule 604(d) certificate issue requires remand	Bailey	State argues no jurisdiction to reach merits, so certificate moot	Dismissed; jurisdiction lacking.
Whether Bailey’s motion to vacate was timely under Rule 604(d)	Bailey	Untimely postplea motion; not tolled by revestment	Untimely; no jurisdiction to review merits.

People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2003) (revestment viability; lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent)
People v. Kaeding, 98 Ill. 2d 237 (Ill. 1983) (revestment where both parties seek revisitation; limits of Flowers)
People v. Sears, 85 Ill. 2d 253 (Ill. 1981) (revestment not applicable when jurisdiction not lost; context matters)
People v. Barth, 103 Ill. 2d 536 (Ill. 1984) (pre-judgment motion; revestment not applicable to stay appeal timing)
People v. Montiel, 365 Ill. App. 3d 601 (Ill. App. 2006) (revestment when active participation inconsistent with final judgment (state agreed to lower sentence))
People v. Minniti, 373 Ill. App. 3d 55 (Ill. App. 2007) (revestment doctrine sustained despite Flowers in some contexts)