FOURTH DIVISION
December 21, 2006
No. 1-05-1683
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. )
)
CHRISTOPHER CLAUDIN, ) The Honorable
) David P. Sterba,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINN, delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant, Christopher Claudin, entered a negotiated plea of
guilty to a charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was
sentenced to three years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant
contends that the trial court failed to properly admonish him
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (Official Reports Advance
Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), R. 605(c), eff. October 1, 2001)
and that his cause must be remanded for admonishments in
accordance with that rule.
Defendant was originally charged in a 13-count indictment
with aggravated sexual assault, criminal sexual assault,
aggravated criminal sexual abuse, criminal sexual abuse, and
unlawful restraint of his girlfriend. On January 14, 2005,
defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of
aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was sentenced to three
years' imprisonment pursuant to the agreement. The trial court
1-05-1683
then admonished defendant as follows:
"All right. You have a right to appeal. In order to
do so you must first file a motion to withdraw your plea of
guilty, modify or reconsider the sentence. That motion must
be in writing and filed with the clerk of the circuit court
within 30 days of today's date.
Therein you must set forth all of your grounds or
reasons therefore. Anything not so stated will be deemed
waived or given up.
You also have a right to a copy of the transcript of
these proceedings and an attorney to assist you in the
preparation and presentation of that motion.
If you can't afford either, each will be provided to
you free of charge.
Do you understand that?"
Defendant responded that he understood, but he did not file
a postplea motion. Rather, on February 8, 2005, defendant filed
a notice of appeal. In this court, defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the trial courts admonitions.
Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (Official Reports Advance Sheet
No. 4 (February 16, 2005), R. 604(d), eff. February 1, 2005)
requires a defendant who wishes to appeal from a judgment entered
on a negotiated guilty plea to first file a written motion with
the trial court to withdraw the guilty plea and vacate the
judgment (People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d 872, 876 (2003)).
Compliance with Rule 604(d) is a condition precedent to an
appeal, and if defendant fails to meet this requirement, the
-2-
1-05-1683
appellate court must dismiss the appeal. People v. Flowers, 208
Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003). However, under the admonishment
exception to this rule, if the trial court fails to give the
admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and defendant subsequently
attempts to appeal without first filing the requisite Rule 604(d)
motion, the appeal is not dismissed but, rather, the cause is
remanded to the trial court for strict compliance with Rule
604(d). Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301; People v. Jamison, 181 Ill.
2d 24, 30 (1998).
Here, defendant failed to file a Rule 604(d) motion to
withdraw his guilty plea and instead filed his notice of appeal.
This omission may result in the waiver of his right to a direct
appeal, unless the trial court failed to admonish defendant in
accordance with Rule 605(c). The trial court is held to strict
compliance with the admonition requirements of Rule 605(c);
however, the court is not required to use the exact language of
the rule and the admonitions will be deemed insufficient only
where the court has omitted the substance of the rule. Dunn, 342
Ill. App. 3d at 881. We review the trial court's compliance with
supreme court rules de novo. People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. App. 3d
379, 384 (2003).
The record in this case shows that the trial court informed
defendant of his right to appeal, and the need to first file a
written motion to withdraw his guilty plea, "modify or reconsider
the sentence," within 30 days of that court date. The court also
admonished defendant that any issues not raised in such a motion
would be waived, that he had a right to a free copy of the
-3-
1-05-1683
transcript and that counsel would be appointed to assist him in
the presentation and preparation of his motion free of charge.
These admonitions clearly show substantial compliance with
subsections (1), (2), (5) and (6) of Rule 605(c). Official
Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), R5. 605(c)(1),
(c)(2),(c)(5),(c)(6) eff. October 1, 2001.
Defendant, nevertheless, contends that the admonishments
were insufficient because the trial court failed to inform him
that if his motion was allowed, the plea, the sentence, and the
judgment would be vacated and a trial date would be set on the
charges to which the plea was made (Official Reports Advance
Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001), R. 605(c)(3), eff. October 1,
2001); and if the court granted his motion to withdraw, the State
could reinstate the 12 charges it dropped as part of the plea
deal (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001),
R. 605(c)(4), eff. October 1, 2001).
This same argument was made and rejected in People v. Crump,
344 Ill. App. 3d 558, 563 (2003), where the court concluded that
defendant was substantially admonished of his appeal rights
following his guilty plea and was not prejudiced by the missing
verbiage. We find no meaningful difference in this case and
therefore find that defendant was substantially admonished
pursuant to Rule 605(c), and that his failure to file a Rule
604(d) motion is not cured by the admonition exception.
Defendant further contends, however, that the trial court
provided an incorrect and misleading admonishment by telling him
that to appeal he could "file a motion to withdraw [his] plea of
-4-
1-05-1683
guilty, modify or reconsider the sentence," when his only
recourse was to file a motion to vacate his negotiated guilty
plea. Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17, 2001),
R. 605(c)(2), eff. October 1, 2001; Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d at
881.
We agree with defendant that he could not preserve his
appeal rights by only filing a motion to modify, or reconsider
his sentence, and that the court's reference to such a motion in
advising defendant that he must first file a motion to withdraw
his plea of guilty was extraneous and incorrect. However, when
read in context, we find that it does not provide cause for
reversal, where the trial court conveyed the substance of the
rule and put defendant on notice of the necessity of first filing
a postplea motion within 30 days, and defendant indicated his
understanding of this requisite. Nevertheless, defendant failed
to file any type of postplea motion and instead filed a notice of
appeal. As in In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338, 347-48 (2006), the
admonitions did not strictly comply with Rule 605(c), but they
were sufficient to put defendant on notice of the postplea action
necessary to preserve his appeal, and he ignored it.
Under these circumstances, we find that defendant's failure
to file a Rule 604(d) motion is not encompassed within the
admonition exception and that he has waived his right to a direct
appeal. Crump, 344 Ill. App. 3d at 563. Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
CAMPBELL and GREIMAN, JJ., concur.
-5-