People v. Hall
2017 IL App (1st) 150918
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- After a jury found Adam Hall to be a "sexually violent person" under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, the trial court entered judgment and committed him to the Department of Human Services on May 14, 2014.
- The court set a post-trial status date of June 20, 2014; parties discussed waiving the 30-day period but the written order did not expressly extend the deadline for filing posttrial motions.
- On June 20 defense counsel sought leave to file a motion for a new trial and indicated he had just filed it; the record contains a motion for a new trial but it lacks a file stamp and no clear filing date appears in the record.
- The parties repeatedly continued the posttrial-motion hearing through dates in August, October, December 2014, and January–February 2015; a supplemental motion was filed and argued, and the court denied the motion on February 6, 2015.
- Defendant filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2015. The State moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing the 30-day postjudgment window expired and the trial court lost jurisdiction before any timely posttrial motion was filed.
- The appellate court concluded the record does not show a timely-filed posttrial motion, the revestment doctrine does not apply, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits; it vacated the trial court’s February 6, 2015 order denying posttrial motions and left the commitment judgment in place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to hear posttrial motions after the 30‑day period following entry of judgment | State: No — no timely posttrial motion or court-ordered extension; therefore court lost jurisdiction and subsequent orders are null | Hall: The State waived the 30‑day requirement and the court ordered/accepted an extension (dates set, parties agreed) | Held: No jurisdiction — record fails to show a timely-filed posttrial motion or explicit court extension, so trial court lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the motions |
| Whether the revestment doctrine restores jurisdiction despite untimely filings | State: Revestment inapplicable because State defended the judgment on the merits | Hall: Parties’ conduct and lack of objection should revest jurisdiction | Held: Revestment does not apply — third revestment element unmet because State opposed setting aside the judgment |
| Whether the notice of appeal was timely | State: Notice untimely because no timely posttrial motion tolled appeal period | Hall: Timely posttrial motion filed; appeal period tolled | Held: Notice of appeal untimely — no timely posttrial motion shown, so appeal period was not tolled |
| Appropriate appellate remedy when trial court lacked jurisdiction over posttrial motions | State: Dismiss appeal or affirm | Hall: Merits should be considered | Held: Vacate the trial court’s February 6, 2015 order denying posttrial motions and decline to reach merits; commitment judgment remains in effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Trentman v. Kappel, 333 Ill. App. 3d 440 (discusses trial court jurisdiction and posttrial motion deadlines)
- Manning v. City of Chicago, 407 Ill. App. 3d 849 (party must obtain court-ordered extension before deadline expires to preserve jurisdiction)
- Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426 (appellant bears burden to present complete record)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (doubts from incomplete record resolved against appellant)
- Portock v. Freeman, 53 Ill. App. 3d 1027 (untimely posttrial motion means trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it)
- Lowenthal v. McDonald, 367 Ill. App. 3d 919 (court lacks jurisdiction to grant additional time after missed deadline)
- People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459 (revestment doctrine elements and limits on appellate review of trial court jurisdiction)
- Secura Ins. Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209 (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional and mandatory)