People v. Dominguez
2012 IL 111336
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Dominguez pled guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 16 years.
- Indicted in June 2007 on 26 counts; Spanish interpreter and counsel present.
- Rule 605 admonitions were given orally and via a written form signed by Dominguez.
- Dominguez filed a pro se notice of appeal; appellate court dismissed for failure to file proper postplea motions.
- Appellate court and circuit court found substance of Rule 605(c) conveyed; issue on compliance.
- Supreme Court majority affirms; dissent argues for strict verbatim compliance and amendment of Rule 605.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 605(c) requires strict or substantial compliance. | Dominguez advocates strict compliance. | People contend substantial compliance suffices. | Substantial compliance governs; not verbatim reading. |
| Role and weight of written admonishments in Rule 605(c) analysis. | Written form should supplement, not substitute for oral admonishments. | Oral and written together can satisfy substance of rule. | Written admonishments, discussed in open court, may inform substantial compliance. |
| Effect of specific admonishments (e.g., counsel availability, postplea motions timing, reinstatement of dismissed charges). | Oral omissions or inaccuracies may prejudice; must be corrected. | Combined oral and written admonishments sufficiently conveyed substance. | Overall admonishments substantially advised the substance of Rule 605(c) for preservation of appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24 (1998) (mandatory nature of 605(c) admonitions; strictness varies by context)
- People v. Foster, 171 Ill. 2d 469 (1996) (strict vs substantial compliance; context-dependent)
- People v. Breedlove, 213 Ill. 2d 509 (2004) (distinguishes 605(a) from 605(b)/(c) compliance)
- In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338 (2006) (substantial compliance acceptable when essence of rule conveyed)
- People v. Tlatenchi, 391 Ill. App. 3d 705 (2009) (substantial compliance considerations in 605(c) analysis)
- People v. Claudin, 369 Ill. App. 3d 532 (2006) (appellate division on 605(c) substantial compliance factors)
- Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d 872 (2003) (counsel availability and substance of admonitions)