People v. Perry, 23 N.E.3d 424

Background

Torrin Perry was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and two counts of unlawful gun registration in Cook County; he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault under a negotiated plea on July 24, 2012 (90 days, 45 days credit) and the UUW counts were dismissed.
After sentencing the court gave brief postplea admonishments that Perry later contended were incomplete under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 605(c).
On August 1, 2012, Perry filed a pro se "Notification of Motion" seeking to withdraw his plea but did not attach a written motion setting forth grounds.
At an August 20 hearing the court asked Perry why he sought to withdraw; Perry said counsel had been ineffective. The court struck the notification because no accompanying motion was filed and told Perry to file a motion.
Perry filed more pro se notifications on August 21, including a request for counsel; those filings came after he had filed a notice of appeal, which divested the trial court of jurisdiction to act on them.
On appeal Perry argued the trial court failed to comply with Rule 605(c) in its postplea admonitions and erred in not appointing counsel to assist with postplea motions; the appellate court remanded for appointment of counsel and 30 days for filing a postplea motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court complied with Rule 605(c) postplea admonishments	The State argued admonishments were sufficient	Perry argued admonishments omitted required warnings (reinstatement of dismissed charges and waiver of issues not raised) and were unclear about motion vs direct appeal	Court held admonishments were inadequate under Rule 605(c) and remanded
Whether court erred by striking pro se notifications for lack of accompanying motions	State argued court properly struck filings lacking motions and lacked jurisdiction over filings after notice of appeal	Perry argued his notifications and in-court statements manifested desire to withdraw plea and request counsel, triggering court duties	Court held some filings (after notice) were beyond trial court's jurisdiction, but Perry did manifest an interest in relief before jurisdiction divested, so court had duty to inquire about appointment of counsel; remanded for appointment and 30 days to file postplea motion
Whether trial court had duty to ask about appointment of counsel under Rule 604(d) / Griffin	State urged no affirmative duty absent a proper motion	Perry relied on Griffin and Rule 604(d) that judge must inquire once defendant manifests interest in appealing	Court followed Griffin: once defendant manifested interest in relief, judge must ask whether counsel is desired and appoint if necessary; trial court failed to do so
Scope of appellate review given filings after notice of appeal	State argued trial court acted within bounds for some filings	Perry argued all post-hearing filings should be considered	Court held appellate jurisdiction attached at notice of appeal; trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on filings after August 20/21, so appellate review limited to pre-notice proceedings

Key Cases Cited

People v. Carter, 91 Ill. App. 3d 635 (1980) (notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction)
People v. Griffin, 305 Ill. App. 3d 326 (1999) (trial judge must inquire about appointment of counsel when defendant manifests interest in appealing)
People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d 872 (2003) (trial court need not use exact Rule 605(c) language but must convey its substance)
People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. App. 3d 379 (2003) (admonishments inadequate where required warnings are omitted)
People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (2003) (forfeiture limits parties but appellate courts may address issues to secure just result)
Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 211 Ill. 2d 106 (2004) (appellate court may consider issues notwithstanding forfeiture to maintain coherent precedent)
People v. Garner, 347 Ill. App. 3d 578 (2004) (standard of review for certain postplea procedural issues)