People v. Salem
2016 IL 118693
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Defendant was convicted in two trials: multiple counts of unlawful possession of vehicle titles ("open titles" case) and possession of a stolen motor vehicle (stolen vehicle case).
- In each case defendant filed a posttrial motion for new trial more than 30 days after the jury verdict but before/shortly after sentencing: open titles motion filed 116 days after verdict and denied after hearing; stolen vehicle motion filed 54 days after verdict and denied. The State did not object to timeliness at trial and the court heard the motions on the merits.
- Notices of appeal were filed within 30 days of the orders denying the motions for new trial but not within 30 days of sentencing/entry of final judgment in either case.
- The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606(b) because defendant’s motions for new trial were not timely under the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the notices of appeal were untimely. A dissent would have reached the merits in the open titles case and found trial error.
- The Illinois Supreme Court agreed the appellate court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the rules, but—exercising its supervisory authority—reinstated the appeal given the unique facts, confusion at trial about filing deadlines, and the fundamental nature of the right to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction to hear appeals given timing of notices of appeal | Rule 606(b) requires a notice within 30 days of final judgment or, if a timely postjudgment motion is filed, within 30 days of the order disposing of that motion; defendant’s notices were untimely so appellate court lacked jurisdiction | Filing a motion for new trial (even if after 30 days from verdict) tolled/extended the appeal deadline because trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion; notices filed within 30 days of denial should be timely | Court held appellate court lacked jurisdiction because Rule 606(b) requires the motion attacking the judgment be timely under the Code (section 116‑1) to toll the 30‑day appeal period |
| Whether trial court jurisdiction to hear untimely motions makes those motions "timely" for Rule 606(b) | — | A motion is "timely" for Rule 606 only if it complies with the Code’s 30‑day requirement; trial court jurisdiction alone is insufficient | Court rejected defendant’s interpretation; compliance with section 116‑1(b) is required to extend appeal deadline |
| Whether Rule 606(c) extended deadline or could be applied sua sponte to save appeals | — | Notices were filed within Rule 606(c)’s six‑month window, so appellate court should have treated them as timely or permitted late filing | Court held defendant failed to meet Rule 606(c)’s requirements (no affidavits/requests); subsection (c) did not save the appeals |
| Whether the Supreme Court should exercise supervisory authority to reinstate the appeals despite rules noncompliance | — | Court should exercise discretion because counsel and court confusion, State’s lack of objection, merits concerns, and fundamental right to appeal warrant relief | Court exercised supervisory power: vacated appellate judgment and reinstated appeal while reaffirming that appellate courts generally must enforce Rule 606(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459 (clarifies scope of revestment doctrine and when trial court regains jurisdiction)
- People v. Lyles, 217 Ill. 2d 210 (appellate jurisdiction depends on compliance with supreme court rules; supervisory relief discussion)
- People v. Baldwin, 199 Ill. 2d 1 (sentencing is the final judgment in criminal cases)
- People v. Talach, 114 Ill. App. 3d 813 (trial court retains jurisdiction after 30 days from verdict because final judgment is sentencing)
- People v. Williams, 59 Ill. 2d 243 (discusses circumstances where late appeals have been allowed due to exceptional circumstances)
- People v. Brown, 54 Ill. 2d 25 (appellate court abused discretion to dismiss where procedural failures and long delay deprived defendant of opportunity to appeal)