People v. Stevenson
960 N.E.2d 739
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Rickey Stevenson was convicted of burglary after a February 28, 2008 bench trial and sentenced to eight years.
- Four notices of appeal were filed concerning his burglary conviction; No. 1-08-1543 was dismissed following pro se filings and confusion.
- On May 22, 2008, Stevenson, then represented, filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence; appellate counsel was appointed later that month.
- In June 2009, appellate counsel moved to place Stevenson’s May 2008 pro se motion to reconsider on call; the circuit court eventually held a status/hearing in November 2009.
- Stevenson’s pro se postsentencing motion was denied; he filed another notice of appeal on December 7, 2009.
- The State argued this court lacked jurisdiction because the pro se motion was void and did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely and properly before the court. | State: Rule 606(b) requires timely postjudgment motions and tolling; the May 22, 2008 pro se motion was void. | Stevenson: Pro se motion was timely and before hybrid representation was complete; jurisdiction revestment not needed. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the pro se postsentencing motion tolled the time to appeal under Rule 606(b). | State: Timely postjudgment motions toll the clock; pro se motion invalid due to representation status and timing. | Stevenson: Pro se motion timely and properly filed before appellate counsel; tolling should apply. | Rule 606(b) tolling did not apply; motion was repetitious and not properly filed. |
| Whether revestment doctrine could revest trial court with jurisdiction after an appeal was perfected. | State: Revestment could occur if parties actively participated without objecting, undermining appellate jurisdiction. | Stevenson: State’s conduct could revest the trial court; however, the merits of the final judgment were not affected. | Revestment not triggered; appellate jurisdiction remained with the Illinois Appellate Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill. App. 3d 199 (2001) (repetition of postjudgment motions not allowed to extend appeal time)
- People v. Baskin, 213 Ill. App. 3d 477 (1991) ( Rule 606(b) timing and tolling framework for notices of appeal)
- People v. Pondexter, 214 Ill. App. 3d 79 (1991) (limits on pro se filings when represented by counsel)
- People v. Handy, 278 Ill. App. 3d 829 (1996) (hybrid representation not allowed; duties of counsel vs. self-representation)
- In re Sean N., 391 Ill. App. 3d 1104 (2009) (hybrid representation; limits on pro se postjudgment filings)
- People v. Bannister, 236 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (revestment doctrine and its limits after appellate review begun)
- Minniti, 373 Ill. App. 3d 55 (2007) (revestment analysis after notice of appeal filed)
- Gargani, 371 Ill. App. 3d 729 (2007) (distinguishes revestment scenarios from those here)