2022 IL 127965
Ill.2022Background:
- Defendant Itasha Walls pleaded guilty in July 2005 to two counts of second‑degree murder and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to three consecutive 15‑year terms.
- Walls timely filed a motion to reconsider his sentence (Rule 604(d)) in Sept. 2005; the trial court denied that motion on Oct. 14, 2005. In Nov. 2005 he filed a motion for rehearing asserting counsel had not complied with Rule 604(d).
- The case experienced long periods of inactivity. Walls later filed collateral petitions (a 2‑1401 petition in 2010 and amended petitions including postconviction claims in 2019).
- In July 2019 the trial court concluded the original 2005 motion remained unresolved for lack of a Rule 604(d) certificate, struck subsequent filings, and directed compliance with Rule 604(d); counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate and an amended motion in Feb. 2020, which the court denied.
- Walls filed a notice of appeal on Mar. 6, 2020. The appellate court held the appeal untimely because the 30‑day appeal period ran from the Oct. 14, 2005 denial of the original Rule 604(d) motion and therefore lacked jurisdiction; the appellate court vacated the order striking collateral proceedings and remanded for further collateral proceedings.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed: a motion for rehearing of the denial of a Rule 604(d) motion does not toll the 30‑day appeal period; the direct appeal was untimely; the case is remanded to reinstate and proceed with collateral pleadings, with admonitions to avoid further delay.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion for rehearing of the denial of a Rule 604(d) postsentencing motion tolls the 30‑day period to file a notice of appeal | The People: Rules 604(d) and 606(b) require a notice of appeal within 30 days after the order denying the Rule 604(d) motion; allowing tolling by a rehearing motion would permit successive postjudgment motions and undermine finality | Walls: A rehearing motion tolls the appeal clock; under Feldman the notice of appeal filed within 30 days of denial of rehearing is timely | The court held rehearing does not toll the 30‑day appeal period; the final judgment is the sentence and the 30‑day clock ran from the Oct. 14, 2005 denial; the late 2020 notice was untimely; Feldman is overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Feldman, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1124 (2011) (appellate court decision holding rehearing could make a later appeal timely — overruled here)
- People v. Abdullah, 2019 IL 123492 (2019) (reaffirms that the sentence is the final judgment in a criminal case)
- People v. Caballero, 102 Ill. 2d 23 (1984) (same rule that sentence is the final judgment)
- Sears v. Sears, 85 Ill. 2d 253 (1981) (principles favoring finality of judgments and disfavoring repeated postjudgment motions)