2014 IL App (2d) 121105
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Kristen Shaw was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated domestic battery and sentenced to three years’ probation on July 20, 2012.
- The trial court admonished Shaw under Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(a)(3) that she had 30 days to file a notice of appeal or a motion to reconsider the sentence.
- Shaw filed a motion to reconsider her sentence 34 days after sentencing (untimely) and the hearing on that motion occurred October 4, 2012.
- At the motion hearing the assistant State’s Attorney said only, “I don’t have any argument”; the trial court denied the motion on the merits that same day.
- Shaw filed a notice of appeal the day the motion was denied; she argued insufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
- The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits but, following People v. Bailey, vacated the trial court’s denial of the motion and ordered the motion dismissed as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review Shaw’s appeal after an untimely motion to reconsider | The State implicitly argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over a late motion; appellate jurisdiction depends on timely appeal under Rule 606(b) | Shaw argued revestment occurred because the State did not object and participated in the hearing, so the late motion revested the trial court and extended appeal time | The court held it lacked jurisdiction to reach merits; it vacated the trial court’s ruling and dismissed the untimely motion because revestment did not occur |
| Whether the revestment doctrine applied when the State did not object to untimeliness but contested the motion’s merits | The State’s participation on merits does not make proceedings inconsistent with the prior judgment; revestment requires both parties to act in a way that supports setting aside part of the judgment | Shaw claimed State’s nonobjection and participation amounted to active participation sufficient for revestment | The court held revestment did not apply because the State did not support setting aside any portion of the judgment; mere argument on merits without agreement is insufficient |
| Effect of People v. Bailey (supreme court) on appeals from untimely postjudgment motions | The People urged adherence to Bailey: trial court rulings on untimely motions are void and appellate courts may vacate and dismiss such rulings | Shaw sought to rely on prior appellate cases holding revestment where State contested merits without objecting to untimeliness | The court followed Bailey: even without a timely notice of appeal, the appellate court has limited jurisdiction to vacate the trial court’s void ruling and dismiss the motion |
| Whether the late motion extended the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 606(b) | The State argued a late motion does not extend appeal time where revestment fails | Shaw argued the motion (and the denial) tolled the appeal period because of revestment | The court held the late motion did not extend the appeal period; the notice of appeal was untimely for purposes of entertaining the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459 (Ill. 2014) (revestment requires both parties to actively participate, fail to object to untimeliness, and take positions inconsistent with the prior judgment; appellate court may vacate void trial-court rulings on jurisdiction)
- People v. Kaeding, 98 Ill. 2d 237 (Ill. 1983) (original formulation of revestment doctrine: revestment where parties actively participate without objection in proceedings inconsistent with prior judgment)
- In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338 (Ill. 2006) (timely notice of appeal vests appellate court jurisdiction)
- People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23 (Ill. 1984) (final judgment in a criminal case is the sentence)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2003) (trial court generally loses jurisdiction over late motions directed against the judgment)
- People v. Zoph, 381 Ill. App. 3d 435 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (earlier appellate decision finding revestment where State argued merits without objecting to untimeliness)
- People v. MacArthur, 313 Ill. App. 3d 864 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (if revestment occurs, a ruling on a late motion can extend the time to appeal)