THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. SILVESTRE DOMINGUEZ, Appellant.
111336
Supreme Court of Illinois
April 19, 2012
September 24, 2012
2012 IL 111336
Supreme Court
People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336
Held (Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.): Dismissal of a Spanish-speaker‘s appeal for failure to file proper post-guilty-plea motions was affirmed where
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Hon. Thomas M. Tucker, Judge, presiding.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Anita Alvarez, State‘s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Annette Collins and Yvette Loizon, Assistant State‘s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Justices: JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Thomas, Karmeier, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Burke dissented, with opinion, joined by Chief Justice Kilbride and Justice Freeman.
OPINION
¶ 1 Defendant, Silvestre Dominguez,1 pleaded guilty to one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (
¶ 2 BACKGROUND
¶ 3 In June 2007 defendant was indicted on 26 counts, mostly relating to the sexual abuse of a single minor victim. By September 2007 defendant had been appointed a public defender. A Spanish language interpreter was also present in the courtroom for defendant‘s appearances. On September 10, 2008, defendant indicated to his attorney that he wished to waive his right to a jury trial. A bench trial was set for October 9, 2008. Defendant appeared in court on October 9, 2008, with his attorney and the Spanish language interpreter. The circuit court discussed the charges against defendant and the possible penalties. Defendant indicated that he understood. The court then stated to defendant:
“THE COURT: However, your lawyer has told me that you are willing at this point to have a conference with the Court which means we would review your case and come up with a sentence for you. So I am going to admonish you as to that.
Your lawyer and the State are seeking a conference regarding your case. At the conference, I will hear the facts and circumstances surrounding your arrest. I will hear about any traffic or criminal background you may have. Normally, I wouldn‘t hear this unless there was a trial or a plea. We may reach an agreement that‘s acceptable to you and your attorney. We may not. In the event we do not, you would not have a right to have another judge preside at your trial, be it bench or jury trial, for the reason I participated in the conference.
Do you understand, and do you want me to participate in the conference?
DEFENDANT: Yes.”
¶ 4 The attorneys and circuit court then held the conference in the court‘s chambers. After the conference, the court again addressed defendant concerning the charges against him and the possible penalties he faced. Defendant said he understood and wanted to plead guilty. The court then, in detail, discussed with defendant what he would be giving up by pleading guilty, such as the right to trial and the right to confront witnesses against him. The court noted there was a signed waiver from defendant indicating that he understood he was giving up those rights. The court asked, “You signed that after making yourself aware of that right and you wish to give it up?” Defendant indicated “yes” and that it was his signature on the waiver of rights. Defendant indicated he understood the rights he was giving up and still wished to plead guilty, which he did. The State then presented the factual basis for defendant‘s plea.
¶ 5 After hearing the factual basis, the court asked defendant if those facts were what he was pleading guilty to and defendant stated “yes.” Defendant also waived his right to a presentence investigation. Defendant was sentenced to 16 years in prison. The victim then addressed the court, asking for more than 16 years. The court then stated to defendant:
“THE COURT: Sir, even though you have pled guilty and been found guilty, you have certain rights. Those rights include your right to return to the courtroom within 30 days to file motions to vacate your plea of guilty and/or reconsider your sentence. The motions must be in writing and contain all the reasons to support them. Any reasons not contained therein will not be preserved for purposes of appeal. Should your motion to vacate your plea of guilty be granted, your plea of guilty and the judgment I have entered thereon will be vacated, meaning erased. Your case will be set back down on the trial calendar for further proceedings. Should your motion to reconsider sentence be granted, you will be resentenced. In the event the motions are denied, you have 30 days from denial to return to file a notice of appeal the Court‘s ruling. If you wish to do so and could not afford an attorney, we will give you an attorney free of charge, along with the transcripts necessary for those purposes.
I have a signed acknowledgment of those rights. Is that your signature (indicating)?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you signed that after making yourself aware of those rights,
is that correct?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Good luck to you.”
¶ 6 Defendant filed a form entitled “Acknowledgment By Defendant of Advice Given to Him By the Trial Judge Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605 (B)” with the circuit court on October 9, 2008. The space labeled “Date” on the form was left blank, but defendant‘s signature was on the form. The form recited
¶ 7 The State dismissed all other charges and defendant did not file a postplea motion. On January 20, 2009, defendant filed a pro se “Notice of Appeal” with the appellate court. The notice was dated December 4, 2008. In the notice, defendant stated:
“1. Defendant Silvestre Dominguez was told by court appointed counsel to sign a paper at plea bargain court date. 2. Defendant Silvestre Dominguez court appoinde [sic] counsel Ms. Diana Garcia told Defendant that signing that document would give Defendant the right for an Appeal. 3. Defendant Silvestre Dominguez is not well spoken or have any understanding whatsoever in reading, comprehending legal materials. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Silvestre Dominguez, request that this court enter a Notice of Appeal in this case.”
¶ 8 The appellate court dismissed defendant‘s appeal, finding he had failed to file the proper postplea motions to perfect his right to appeal and challenge his guilty plea. The appellate court found the substance of the rule was conveyed to defendant and that defendant indicated, both orally and in writing, that he understood the rule. The court rejected defendant‘s remaining arguments, finding that defendant (1) was made aware by the court of the general right to counsel in reference to postplea motions; (2) did not file any postplea motions; and (3) understood the proceedings, as he had been provided with a Spanish interpreter and informed the court he understood what was happening and had even signed documents to this effect.
¶ 9 ANALYSIS
¶ 10 Defendant argues that the circuit court failed to strictly comply with
¶ 11 We conclude that, based on the plain meaning of
¶ 12
“No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence is being challenged, or, if the plea is being challenged, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. No appeal shall be taken upon a negotiated plea of guilty challenging the sentence as excessive unless the defendant, within 30 days of the imposition of sentence, files a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. *** Upon appeal any issue not raised by the defendant in the motion to reconsider the sentence or withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment shall be deemed waived.”
Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006).
¶ 13
“In all cases in which a judgment is entered upon a negotiated plea of guilty, at the time of imposing sentence, the trial court shall advise the defendant substantially as follows:
(1) that the defendant has a right to appeal;
(2) that prior to taking an appeal the defendant must file in the trial court, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, a written motion asking to have the judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, setting forth the grounds for the motion;
(3) that if the motion is allowed, the plea of guilty, sentence and judgment will be vacated and a trial date will be set on the charges to which the plea of guilty was made;
(4) that upon the request of the State any charges that may have been dismissed as a part of a plea agreement will be reinstated and will also be set for trial;
(5) that if the defendant is indigent, a copy of the transcript of the proceedings
at the time of the defendant‘s plea of guilty and sentence will be provided without cost to the defendant and counsel will be appointed to assist the defendant with the preparation of the motions; and
(6) that in any appeal taken from the judgment on the plea of guilty any issue or claim of error not raised in the motion to vacate the judgment and to withdraw the plea of guilty shall be deemed waived.
For the purposes of this rule, a negotiated plea is one in which the prosecution has bound itself to recommend a specific sentence, or a specific range of sentence, or where the prosecution has made concessions relating to the sentence to be imposed and not merely to the charge or charges then pending.”
Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001).
“Because this issue concerns the proper interpretation of a supreme court rule, our review is de novo.” People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449, 458 (2005).
¶ 14 A. Rule 605(c) Compliance: Substantial v. Strict
¶ 15 The actual language of
¶ 16 The rule itself requires the defendant be substantially advised of certain rights. To determine what is meant by “substantially,” we must turn to the rules of statutory interpretation. The rules of statutory interpretation are applied with equal force to supreme court rules. People v. Roberts, 214 Ill. 2d 106, 116 (2005); In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 404 (1998). The primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the rule‘s drafters’ intent, the surest and most reliable indicator of which is the language of the rule itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 323 (2007). In determining the plain meaning of the rule‘s terms, we consider the rule in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the apparent intent of the drafters in enacting it. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d at 323. Where the language of the rule is clear and unambiguous, we must apply it as written, without resort to extrinsic aids to statutory construction. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d at 323. We interpret the rule so that no part of it is rendered meaningless or superfluous and we do not depart from the plain language of the rule by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that conflict with the expressed intent. Holly v. Montes, 231 Ill. 2d 153, 159 (2008); People v. Jones, 214 Ill. 2d 187, 193 (2005).
¶ 17 Here, we find the plain language of the rule to be clear and unambiguous. The use of the
¶ 18 In determining the plain, ordinary, and popularly understood meaning of a term, it is entirely appropriate to look to the dictionary for a definition. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d at 330. “Substantially” is the adverb form of “substantial.” According to Merriam-Webster‘s Collegiate Dictionary, “substantial” means: “5 : being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” Merriam-Webster‘s Collegiate Dictionary 1174 (10th ed. 1998). Although “substantial” is not defined in Black‘s Law Dictionary, the related term “substance” is: “1. The essence of something; the essential quality of something, as opposed to its mere form <matter of substance>.” Black‘s Law Dictionary 1565 (9th ed. 2009).
¶ 19 Thus, under its plain and ordinary meaning, “substantially” in the rule does not require a strict verbatim reading of the rule so as to “substantially advise” defendants of its contents. Rather, the court must impart to a defendant largely that which is specified in the rule, or the rule‘s “essence,” as opposed to “wholly” what is specified in the rule.
¶ 20 This is consistent with our court‘s most recent application of whether admonitions were sufficient under
¶ 21 In his brief, defendant urges that ”Foster, Jamison, Breedlove, and Henderson all demand strict
¶ 23 B. Whether the Circuit Court Substantially Advised Defendant Under Rule 605(c)
¶ 24 We must next determine whether the circuit court‘s admonishments substantially advised defendant of the contents of
¶ 25 1. The Value of the Written Admonishments
¶ 26 Based on this court‘s research, and the absence of any case cited by the parties, written admonishments have not been part of a
¶ 27 Under
¶ 28 Defendant, to support his argument that the written admonishments are no substitute when the judge is required by rule to give oral admonishments in open court, cites to several cases concerning a defendant‘s right to a jury trial. See People v. Phillips, 242 Ill. 2d 189 (2011) (where statute required that judge warn accused to appear for court, warning on signed bond slip was no substitute); Scott, 186 Ill. 2d at 284-85 (a written waiver form alone does not validly waive a defendant‘s right to a jury trial); People v. Cummings, 7 Ill. App. 3d 306, 308 (1972) (preprinted
¶ 29 The cases cited by defendant are distinguishable from the instant case. First, none of the cases concern
¶ 30 Here, the written admonishment form did not act as substitute, but rather as a supplement to complement the oral admonishments given by the circuit court in open court. The Phillips case, cited by defendant, actually provides support for the position that written admonishments, while not acceptable as a total substitute for required oral admonishments, can be of value where incomplete oral admonishments may have been given.
¶ 31 In Phillips, the defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder, among other offenses, and arraigned before subsequently posting bail. On the back of the bail bond slip executed on the day of the defendant‘s release on bond, a notice appeared fully informing the defendant that his future failure to appear could result in a trial in his absence and that he could be found guilty and sentenced in his absence. On the front side of the slip, language stated that he understood and accepted the terms and conditions on the slip and understood the consequences if he failed to appear for trial. The defendant signed the slip. Even though
¶ 32 This court affirmed the appellate court judgment reversing the conviction and sentence due to the trial court‘s failure to properly advise the defendant under the statute. The statute in question states that a trial court “‘shall advise [the defendant] at that time or at any later court date on which he is present that if he *** is released on bond and fails to appear in court when required by the court that his failure to appear would constitute a waiver of his right to confront the witnesses against him and trial could proceed in his absence.‘” Phillips, 242 Ill. 2d at 196 (quoting
¶ 33 The court further noted:
“[T]he legislature intended for the trial court to orally admonish a defendant as to the possibility of trial in absentia when he is present in open court at arraignment, or at any later date. We also believe that oral admonishment is most effective to meet the legislative purpose of section
113-4(e) as it provides the trial court with an opportunity to both notify a defendant of his right and obligation to be present at trial, and to verify that he understands this important right and duty.” Phillips, 242 Ill. 2d at 200.
¶ 34 The court also addressed People v. Condon, 272 Ill. App. 3d 437 (1995), where the appellate court held that section
¶ 35 Unlike in Phillips, the written admonishments were provided here in conjunction with oral admonishments. Specifically referring to the written form, the circuit court noted he “had a signed acknowledgment of those rights” and asked defendant if that was his signature. Defendant told him it was. The court then asked defendant, “And you signed it after making yourself aware of those rights, is that correct?” Defendant answered “yes.” The record thus indicates that defendant signed and understood the written form, which reprinted nearly
¶ 36 As to the language barrier, while it is true that the written form was in English, the record reflects that defendant had a Spanish interpreter present with him, along with counsel, in the courtroom on the day he pled guilty. Given the colloquy between the circuit court and defendant noted in the above paragraph, we will not assume that defendant did not understand the form simply because there is nothing on record explicitly documenting the interpreter reading the form to defendant. There is nothing in the record that indicates that defendant or his counsel raised any questions regarding defendant‘s understanding of the admonishments, written or oral. Rather, the record reveals defendant understood the form and, once he was aware of the rights discussed therein, signed it. We conclude that, due to the nature and circumstances of the written admonishments in this case, they are of value in determining whether the circuit court substantially advised defendant under
¶ 37 2. The Circuit Court‘s Substantial Compliance With Rule 605(c)
¶ 38 In support of his argument that the circuit court‘s admonitions did not substantially comply with the rule, defendant points to three problematic admonitions: (1) under
¶ 39 a. Rule 605(c)(2) Admonishment
¶ 40
“that prior to taking an appeal the defendant must file in the trial court, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, a written motion asking to have the judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, setting forth the grounds for the motion[.]”
¶ 41 Here, the circuit court admonished defendant:
“Sir, even though you have pled guilty and been found guilty, you have certain rights. Those rights include your right to return to the courtroom within 30 days to file motions to vacate your plea of guilty and/or reconsider your sentence. The motions must be in writing and contain all the reasons to support them.”
¶ 43 The oral admonishment given to defendant under
¶ 44 b. The Trial Court‘s Rule 605(c)(5) Admonition Made It Seem Defendant Could Obtain Counsel Only After He Had Filed Motions
¶ 45
“that if the defendant is indigent, a copy of the transcript of the proceedings at the time of the defendant‘s plea of guilty and sentence will be provided without cost to
the defendant and counsel will be appointed to assist the defendant with the preparation of the motions.”
¶ 46 Here, the circuit court orally admonished defendant as follows:
“Should your motion to reconsider sentence be granted, you will be resentenced. In the event the motions are denied, you have 30 days from denial to return to file a notice of appeal the Court‘s ruling. If you wish to do so and could not afford an attorney, we will give you an attorney free of charge, along with the transcripts necessary for those purposes.”
¶ 47 Defendant argues that he was misinformed and misled by the circuit court when the court offered counsel only in the event the motions were denied. By implication, the court suggested defendant lacked the right to counsel to prepare the motions. The rule orders the court to clearly explain to a defendant when and how counsel can assist. This deficient admonishment was particularly damaging because it failed to ensure that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The State counters that the oral admonishments provided to defendant are similar to those provided in J.T., where this court found the admonishment substantially complied with
¶ 48 In J.T., the circuit court admonished the respondent about his right to file a petition to withdraw his guilty plea but that, if it denied the petition, the petition would:
“‘go up to the higher court and they will look at everything.
They will take this record this lady is typing up or transcribing and they will read everything that was said in the courtroom by the attorneys, by you, by me, to see whether or not your rights were violated in any way.
Do you understand that?
[J.T.]: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Very well. So—and they will look it over for you and also if you go up on appeal and you are unable to hire an attorney to represent you, the Court will appoint an attorney for you free of charge. That‘s your right to have an attorney if you can‘t afford one. Also, we will provide you with a free copy of the transcript.’ ” J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 343.
¶ 49 This court in J.T. found that these admonitions “were sufficient to put J.T. on notice that he could challenge his guilty plea, and that some action on his part within 30 days was necessary if he wished to appeal.” J.T., 221 Ill. 2d at 347-48.
¶ 50 In People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d 872 (2003), the circuit court admonished the defendant under
“Defendant‘s contention that the trial court failed to admonish him that appointed counsel could help him draft postplea motions is refuted by the record. The trial court admonished defendant that in order to appeal, he must file a written motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court also admonished defendant that if he were indigent, an attorney would be appointed free of charge. These admonitions reflect that a court-appointed attorney would be available for defendant. The language used by the trial court was not the exact language employed by the rule; however, the trial court‘s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule.” Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 882.
¶ 51 Here, as in both J.T. and Dunn, the trial court arguably did not explicitly inform defendant that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed to help him prepare the postplea motions. However, as in both those cases, the admonitions reflect that a court-appointed attorney would be available for defendant. Thus, like in those cases, the trial court‘s admonitions did convey the substance of the rule to defendant and complied with
¶ 52 c. The Circuit Court‘s Failure to Explain Under Rule 605(c)(4) That, Should Defendant‘s Plea Be Vacated, the Dismissed Charges Could Be Reinstated
¶ 53 Here, the circuit court, in its oral admonishments, completely failed to mention the possibility that should defendant‘s plea be vacated, the State could reinstate all charges dismissed in accordance with the negotiated plea. However, the State argues there was substantial compliance because the written admonishments provided full compliance with
¶ 54 We conclude that, taken as a whole, the oral and written admonishments substantially advised defendant of the requirements of
¶ 55 CONCLUSION
¶ 56 The judgments of the circuit and appellate courts are affirmed.
¶ 57 Affirmed.
¶ 58 JUSTICE BURKE, dissenting:
¶ 59 Today, the majority holds that Supreme Court Rule 605 requires only that a defendant be “substantially” advised of the content of the rule (supra ¶ 11) and that the trial court‘s admonishments in the case at bar met that standard (supra ¶¶ 37-54). I disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that the admonishments substantially complied with the dictates of
¶ 60 Initially, I do not agree with the majority that the trial court substantially complied with
¶ 61 With respect to the admonishment which requires the court to explain that a written motion must be filed in the trial court within 30 days of the date of sentence, the trial judge erroneously stated that defendant had to “return to the courtroom.” The majority designates it as “unfortunate” that the trial judge used this phrase (supra ¶ 43). I would go further, however; it is not just unfortunate, but improper.
¶ 62 Moreover, with respect to the admonishment which requires the court to explain to defendant he is entitled to the assistance of counsel, the trial judge‘s statements indicated that defendant was not entitled to counsel until after he filed his postplea motions, i.e., for appeal only. The admonishment was inaccurate and, in my view, did not put defendant on notice that he was entitled to counsel to prepare any postplea motions—the very motions defendant failed to file in this case.
¶ 63 Lastly, the admonishment which requires the trial court to explain to defendant that if the court vacated his guilty plea the State could reinstate all of the charges it had dismissed was entirely lacking. As the majority points out, the trial judge “completely failed” to mention this possibility. Supra ¶ 53. However, the majority concludes that because defendant signed the written admonishment, this was sufficient to put defendant on notice. I disagree. In this instance, the written admonishment was a complete substitute for the oral admonishments—something which the majority itself holds is insufficient: “[t]he written admonishments by themselves are not adequate.” Supra ¶ 27.
¶ 64 There can be no “substantial compliance” when the trial court omits completely one of the six admonishments, fails to relay to defendant the vital fact he is entitled to the assistance of counsel to prepare the required postplea motions needed to preserve his right to appeal, and tells defendant he must return to the court to file his motions. Overall, the
¶ 65 This brings me to my second important point: I believe this court should amend
¶ 66 A bright line rule requiring trial courts to read
¶ 67 Moreover, a determination of whether a trial judge complied with
¶ 68 This is a situation where a bright line rule is appropriate. Not only will a bright line rule preserve judicial resources by simplifying the process and eliminating unnecessary litigation, it will preserve the important right of defendants at issue: the right to appeal and challenge his or her guilty plea and/or sentence. Accordingly, I urge this court to amend