2018 IL App (1st) 152295
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In April 2011 Braden participated in an armed robbery/kidnapping during which a codefendant killed the victim; Braden carried a BB gun and threatened the victim.
- Braden pled guilty to felony murder predicated on armed robbery on November 21, 2014, pursuant to a negotiated 22‑year sentence; remaining counts were nol-prossed.
- At sentencing (Jan. 30, 2015) the court explained appeal rights but admonished only regarding motions to challenge the sentence, not the distinct steps to withdraw a plea or vacate the judgment under Rule 605(c).
- Braden filed a timely pro se motion to vacate his guilty plea (Feb. 25, 2015) with an unsigned/deficient Rule 604(d) certificate; that motion was later withdrawn by an order dated March 17, 2015 entered when Braden was not present and without a signed withdrawal motion in the record.
- Braden filed a late notice of appeal (allowed); he argued the court failed to give proper Rule 605(c) admonishments, counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate was defective, and the withdrawal order was entered without his presence; he also challenged certain fines and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Braden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 605(c) admonishments were sufficient | Admonishments substantially complied because they conveyed appeal procedure and transcript/indigency rights | Admonishments omitted required instructions on how to withdraw a plea and vacate judgment, so they were deficient | Court held admonishments were insufficient and remanded for proper Rule 605(c) admonishments and opportunity to file postplea motions |
| Whether deficient Rule 604(d) certificate and withdrawal of motion prejudiced Braden | State argued any deficiency moot because Braden filed a timely motion and later withdrew it (implying no prejudice) | Certificate was unsigned/defective; withdrawal occurred when Braden absent and without written withdrawal — creating prejudice and uncertainty | Court found record uncertain and potentially prejudicial; remand for admonishments and chance to refile renders separate challenges moot |
| Jurisdiction over appeal tied to March 17, 2015 order | State contended March 17 order may be nonfinal so appeal jurisdiction questionable | Braden argued sentencing order became appealable only after motion to vacate was withdrawn on March 17, 2015, so appeal is timely | Court exercised jurisdiction (late notice allowed); remand outcome moots need to resolve March 17 jurisdiction dispute |
| Validity and offset of assessed fines/fees | State conceded some fees improper (electronic citation, DNA) but defended others as compensatory fees not offsettable | Braden sought vacatur of electronic citation and DNA fees and offset of certain assessments using presentence credit | Court vacated $5 electronic citation and $250 DNA fee; offset $15 state police operations assessment with presentence credit; held other assessments (sheriff court services, automation, document storage, records automation fees) are fees not subject to offset; modified fines/fees order accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93 (explains purpose of Rule 604(d) and need to give trial court opportunity to address plea/sentence errors)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (failure to give Rule 605 admonishments excuses dismissal and requires remand rather than forfeiting appellate review)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional step for appellate review)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (distinguishes fines from fees; presentence incarceration credit offsets fines)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (clarifies central characteristic separating fees from fines is whether the charge reimburses prosecutorial costs)
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (addresses DNA fee/imposition where defendant previously registered in DNA database)