2023 IL App (4th) 220432
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- In May 2022 Bennett Stewart pleaded guilty pursuant to a fully negotiated plea to one count of aggravated battery and was sentenced to 19 years in the DOC; the trial court admonished him about appeal procedures under Rule 605(c).
- Four days after sentencing Stewart, pro se, filed a two-page submission: a titled "Notice of Appeal" enumerating several complaints and an untitled "attachment"/letter asking for reconsideration of sentence, a mental examination, and a new trial/ineffective-assistance relief.
- The clerk filed both pages together as a single notice of appeal. Stewart later asked the appellate court to treat the attachment as a Rule 604(d) postplea motion, strike the notice, appoint counsel, and permit amendment.
- The State maintained the attachment was merely part of the notice of appeal and did not constitute a motion to withdraw the plea or properly invoke Rule 604(d).
- The appellate majority held Stewart failed to file a Rule 604(d) motion (motion to withdraw plea or to reconsider sentence as required for negotiated pleas), and dismissed the appeal.
- Justice Doherty concurred in part and dissented in part: he would have struck the notice of appeal, treated the filing as including a timely postjudgment motion (thereby rendering the notice ineffective under Rule 606(b)), dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for appointment of counsel and consideration of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stewart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did Stewart's untitled "attachment" constitute a Rule 604(d) postplea motion to withdraw plea or to reconsider sentence? | The attachment is merely a continuation of the notice of appeal and does not set forth grounds to withdraw the plea. | The attachment expresses an intent to appeal and asks for reconsideration and relief; it should be liberally construed as a Rule 604(d) motion. | Majority: The attachment was part of the notice of appeal, not a Rule 604(d) motion; Stewart failed to file the required motion and appeal is dismissed. |
| 2) Should the court strike the notice, appoint counsel, and remand to permit a proper Rule 604(d) motion (per Trussel/Ledbetter)? | No—circumstances differ from Trussel; Stewart received Rule 605 admonitions and must follow Rule 604(d); no extraordinary circumstances justify appointment/remand. | Yes—fundamental fairness requires counsel and remand to allow meaningful presentation of claims. | Majority: Declined to follow Trussel; no remand or appointment; dismissed. Partial dissent: would strike notice, appoint counsel, and remand. |
| 3) Does failure to comply with Rule 604(d) deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction or simply preclude merits review? | Failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion precludes merits review and requires dismissal (not a lack of jurisdiction). | (Dissent) A timely postjudgment motion existed; under Rule 606(b) the notice is ineffective and the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to the trial court. | Majority: Noncompliance does not deprive court of jurisdiction but requires dismissal on procedural grounds. Dissent: would treat the filing as a timely postjudgment motion, strike the notice, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Alvarez v. Skryd, 241 Ill. 2d 34 (2011) (Rule 604(d) requires timely postplea motion before appeal).
- People v. Foster, 171 Ill. 2d 469 (1996) (proper Rule 605 admonitions allow courts to hold defendants to Rule 604(d) requirements).
- People v. Brooks, 233 Ill. 2d 146 (2009) (reaffirming that Rule 605 admonitions permit enforcement of Rule 604(d)).
- People v. Trussel, 397 Ill. App. 3d 913 (2010) (remand to strike notice, appoint counsel, and proceed under Rule 604(d) where pro se filing manifestly sought withdrawal of plea).
- People v. Merriweather, 2013 IL App (1st) 113789 (2013) (failure to file timely Rule 604(d) motion precludes appellate merits review).
- People v. Cook, 2023 IL App (4th) 210621 (2023) (pro se defendants must comply with procedural rules; courts should not apply lenient standards simply because a defendant is pro se).