{
  "id": 5274129,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT RILEY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Riley",
  "decision_date": "1991-09-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20143492",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "478",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 Ill. App. 3d 476"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "414 N.E.2d 859",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3147771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/91/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "438 N.E.2d 580",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "581"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ill. App. 3d 936",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3026018
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "938"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/107/0936-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "371 N.E.2d 329",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 799",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3405362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/55/0799-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 6036,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3937206377669123
    },
    "sha256": "a9d46045e2b490d261b77804d46c00d5e5303b06c45efb831f2febf42e831cbd",
    "simhash": "1:a1424d6e730fada6",
    "word_count": 1020
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:36.621238+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT RILEY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Robert Riley, pleaded guilty to murder on October 30, 1990, and was sentenced to a 20-year term of imprisonment. Twenty-eight days later, defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate judgment and mailed a copy to the trial judge, as indicated by the certificate of service attached to the motion. On the same day, defendant also filed a notice of appeal, a motion for reduction of sentence and a motion for transcripts and common law record. The trial court never considered or conducted a hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his plea; instead, the record on appeal was prepared and the case was set on this court\u2019s calendar. Defendant asks us to remand this cause to the trial court for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate judgment. The State asserts that we should dismiss this cause without remandment because the trial court never disposed of defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the plea, and defendant thus failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)).\nSupreme Court Rule 604(d) directs that a defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered upon a guilty plea unless he files a motion to withdraw the plea and vacate the judgment within 30 days of sentencing. The motion must be \u201cpresented promptly\u201d to the trial judge, who must \u201cpromptly\u201d hear the motion. If the trial court denies the motion, the rule requires a defendant to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the denial to preserve his right to appeal. A defendant\u2019s failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion is a jurisdictional defect which precludes this court from considering an appeal unless the defendant was not properly admonished pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 605(b). 134 Ill. 2d R. 605(b); People v. Lundeen (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 799, 371 N.E.2d 329.\nWe find People v. Howard (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 936, 438 N.E.2d 580, dispositive of this issue. In Howard, pro se defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Although the trial court advised defendant that he must file a motion to vacate his guilty plea before he filed a notice of appeal, defendant filed both motions contemporaneously. The trial court did not conduct a hearing on the motion to withdraw. On appeal, this court remanded the cause to allow defendant to file a motion to withdraw in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d), noting that defendant tried to comply with the trial court\u2019s admonitions but failed due to \u201cpossible confusion.\u201d (Howard, 107 Ill. App. 3d at 938, 438 N.E.2d at 581.) As in Howard, the record reveals that defendant here tried to comply with the trial court\u2019s admonition, but because of some confusion, he filed his pro se notice of appeal at the same time as his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court in the present case advised defendant as follows:\n\u201cYou have a right to appeal. If you decide to do so file your written motion of this court within 30 days of the date of sentence.\nYou can ask all these orders be vacated and for leave to withdraw your plea of guilty, setting forward the reasons why the court should allow it on the plea. If the court allows the judgment sentence \u2014 all proceedings will be vacated.\u201d\nThis admonishment did not inform defendant, as required by Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (134 Ill. 2d R. 605(b)(2)), that he must file his motion to withdraw plea before taking an appeal, but rather implied that the notice of appeal itself must be filed within 30 days of sentencing. Given this potentially confusing instruction and the fact that defendant was not represented by counsel when he filed his motion to withdraw and his notice of appeal, under Howard we believe that defendant should be allowed to have the trial court rule on his motion to withdraw the plea.\nRelying on People v. Gambill (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 302, 414 N.E.2d 859, the State asserts that we should dismiss this appeal without remandment because the trial court never ruled on defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the plea, and defendant thus failed to substantially comply with Supreme Court Rule 604(d). In Gambill, defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years\u2019 probation. More than a year later, defendant\u2019s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two years\u2019 imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court admonished defendant and his retained counsel of their duty to file a motion to withdraw the plea pursuant to Rule 604(d). Within 30 days of sentencing, defendant filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and vacate judgment. On the same day, defendant filed his notice of appeal. No hearing was conducted, nor ruling made, on defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the plea. This court concluded that defendant\u2019s failure to obtain a ruling on the motion before proceeding on appeal constituted substantial noncompliance with Rule 604(d). The court therefore dismissed the appeal.\nWe find Gambill distinguishable because the defendant and his counsel were properly admonished so that there could be no confusion. To the extent that Howard and Gambill are in conflict, we believe that the Howard court equitably balanced the defendant\u2019s interest in presenting his grievances and the supreme court\u2019s jurisdiction requirements. We find such approach fair and reasonable.\nWe therefore remand this cause to allow defendant to file a proper motion to withdraw the plea, if he desires, in conformity with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)).\nCause remanded with directions.\nRAKOWSKI, P.J., and EGAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Randolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Joseph M. Gump and Robert Guch, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Jack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Mary Erigid Kenney, and Theresa Harney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT RILEY, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20143492\nOpinion filed September 27, 1991.\nRandolph N. Stone, Public Defender, of Chicago (Joseph M. Gump and Robert Guch, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nJack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Mary Erigid Kenney, and Theresa Harney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 498,
  "last_page_order": 500
}