People v. Murphy , 2021 IL App (4th) 200523-U ( 2021 )

NOTICE 2021 IL App (4th) 200523-U FILED
This Order was filed under December 14, 2021
Supreme Court Rule 23 and NO. 4-20-0523 Carla Bender
is not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate
limited circumstances IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Macon County
JOHNNIE L. MURPHY, ) No. 18CF782
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Thomas E. Griffith Jr.,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Cavanagh and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court failed to
substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 2, 2001)
by failing to admonish defendant that, if he was indigent, counsel would be
appointed to assist him in preparing his postplea motions.
¶2 Defendant, Johnnie L. Murphy, appeals his conviction for attempted first degree
murder. Defendant argues the matter should be remanded because the trial court failed to
substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c) (eff. Oct. 2, 2001) after accepting
his guilty plea. We reverse and remand.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a),
(c)(1)(D), 9-1(a)(1) (West 2018)), aggravated battery with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)),
aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(2)), unlawful possession of a weapon by a
felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)), and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (id. § 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A-5)).
¶5 On June 18, 2019, defendant, while represented by an assistant public defender,
pled guilty to attempted first degree murder pursuant to a fully negotiated plea agreement. The
State agreed to amend the attempted first degree murder charge to remove a firearm
enhancement and to recommend a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. The State also agreed to
dismiss the remaining charges. After admonishing defendant, the trial court accepted his guilty
plea and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The court then admonished defendant as
follows:
“[Defendant], understand even though you’ve entered a plea of guilty, and I’ve
gone along with the plea agreement that you still have the right to appeal. If you
wish to appeal, within 30 days of today’s date you’d have to file a written motion
asking to withdraw your plea of guilty. In the motion you’d have to set forth any
errors this Court made in accepting or going along with your plea agreement.
If the errors are not set forth in the written motion, they’re deemed to have
been waived. The motion would then be set for hearing. At the hearing if the
motion is granted, your plea and judgment would be vacated, the penalty would
be vacated, any charges that were dismissed pursuant to your plea agreement
could be reinstated, your case would be set for trial, and we’d start this process all
over again.
On the other hand, if the motion is denied, then within 30 days of that date
you’d have to file your notice of appeal with our Clerk’s Office, your case would
be appealed to the appellate court in Springfield. If you’re indigent, a transcript
-2-
would be prepared of all proceedings at no cost to yourself, and appellate counsel
would be appointed to assist you in the appeal process.”
¶6 On August 22, 2019, defendant, pro se, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
alleging he received ineffective assistance of plea counsel. In the motion, defendant stated: “Do
[sic] to being on lockdown in recieving [sic] in R & C I’m now able to address this time frame of
this matter of withdraw of guilty on time.”
¶7 At a status hearing, the trial court noted the motion to withdraw the guilty plea
was untimely but directed the State to respond to it. The court indicated that such matters were
often sent back on remand by the appellate court when a defendant alleged he had been on
lockdown. A new attorney was appointed to represent defendant.
¶8 The State filed a response to the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, asserting that
the motion to withdraw the plea was untimely. The trial court treated the State’s response as a
motion to strike defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea, and the court denied the State’s
motion.
¶9 Defendant, through counsel, filed an amended motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
The motion set forth various allegations of ineffective assistance of plea counsel and alleged
defendant was confused at the time he pled guilty due to an injury from a gunshot wound.
Counsel also filed a certificate of compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July
1, 2017). The State filed a response to the amended motion, asserting defendant’s plea was
knowingly and voluntarily made.
¶ 10 Following a hearing, the trial court denied the amended motion to withdraw the
guilty plea. This appeal followed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
-3-
¶ 12 On appeal, defendant argues the matter should be remanded to the trial court for
new postplea proceedings because the trial court failed to admonish him in substantial
compliance with Rule 605(c). Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c) provides:
“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
-4-
withdraw the plea of guilty shall be deemed waived.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 605(c) (eff.
Oct. 1, 2001).
¶ 13 Defendant argues the trial court failed to admonish him pursuant to Rule
605(c)(5) that, if he was indigent, he would be entitled to a court-appointed attorney and free
transcripts to assist in the preparation of his postplea motion. Defendant contends the court’s
admonishments misleadingly limited the availability of appointed counsel and free transcripts to
the appellate process.
¶ 14 Where, as in the instant case, a defendant fails to file a timely postplea motion
pursuant to the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d), the appellate court is
generally precluded from reaching the merits of a subsequent appeal and must dismiss the
appeal. See People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003). However, if the trial court fails to
give the requisite admonitions under Rule 605(c) and the defendant attempts to appeal without
filing a timely postplea motion, the appeal is not dismissed. Id. Instead, the matter is remanded to
the trial court for proceedings consistent with Rule 605(c). People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24,
29-30 (1998). This is because it would violate procedural due process rights to hold a defendant
responsible for failing to comply with Rule 604(d) if he had not been admonished of the rule’s
requirements pursuant to Rule 605(c). Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301; People v. Foster, 171 Ill. 2d
469, 473 (1996).
¶ 15 The trial court is required to strictly comply with Rule 605(c) in the sense that the
admonitions must be given to a defendant who has pled guilty. People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL
111336, ¶ 11. However, a verbatim reading of the rule is not necessary. Id. Rather, a defendant
must be substantially advised of the actual content of the rule. Id. That is, the trial court “must
impart to a defendant largely that which is specified in the rule, or the rule’s ‘essence,’ as
-5-
opposed to ‘wholly’ what is specified in the rule.” Id. ¶ 19. We review de novo whether the trial
court complied with Rule 605(c). People v. Young, 387 Ill. App. 3d 1126, 1127 (2009).
¶ 16 Here, the trial court’s admonitions failed to substantially advise defendant of the
actual content of Rule 605(c)(5)—namely, that if he was indigent, counsel would be appointed
“to assist [him] with the preparation of the [postplea] motions.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. R.
605(c)(5) (eff. Oct 1, 2001). Instead, the trial court only advised defendant that, in the event his
postplea motion was denied and he filed a notice of appeal, “appellate counsel would be
appointed to assist [him] in the appeal process.” The court advising defendant he would receive
appointed appellate counsel if he appealed after the denial of a postplea motion did not impart to
defendant the “essence” of Rule 605(c)(5)—that he was also entitled to appointed counsel during
postplea proceedings.
¶ 17 We reject the State’s reliance on People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336, in
support of its position that the trial court substantially complied with Rule 605(c). In Dominguez,
the trial court admonished the defendant concerning the necessity of filing a motion to withdraw
his guilty plea and/or reconsider his sentence within 30 days in order to appeal. Id. ¶ 5. The court
then stated: “ ‘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.’ ” Id. The defendant also signed a written document that recited Rule 605(c) verbatim
except for one typographical error. Id. ¶ 6.
¶ 18 The Dominguez court held that, while the trial court “arguably did not explicitly
inform [the] defendant that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed to help him prepare the
postplea motions,” it conveyed the substance of Rule 605(c) by reflecting that a court-appointed
-6-
attorney would be available for the defendant. Id. ¶ 51. The Dominguez court further noted that
the written admonishment form, which supplemented the oral admonishments, clearly indicated
that counsel could be appointed to help the defendant prepare his postplea motions. Id.
¶ 19 In the instant case, unlike Dominguez, it was not merely arguable that the trial
court failed to explicitly inform defendant he was entitled to have a court appointed attorney help
him prepare his postplea motions. Here, the trial court explicitly informed defendant that if his
postplea motions were denied, he was entitled to appellate counsel to assist him in the appeal
process. Unlike in Dominguez, this admonition did not arguably convey that appointed counsel
would also be available to assist defendant in preparing postplea motions. Also, unlike in
Dominguez, there were no written admonishments in this case to supplement the oral ones.
¶ 20 We also reject the State’s reliance on People v. Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d 872(2003). In Dunn, the trial court admonished the defendant as follows:
“ ‘Sir, you have a right to appeal. Prior to doing that, you have to file a motion to
withdraw your plea of guilty within 30 days in writing setting forth all the reasons
why you want me to allow you to withdraw your plea of guilty. Any reasons not
set forth in your motion will be waived for purposes of appeal. If you couldn’t
afford an attorney or a copy of the transcript, those will be provided for you free
of charge. If I allow you to withdraw your plea of guilty, all charges will be
reinstated.’ ” Dunn, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 876.
The defendant argued that the trial court failed to advise him that appointed counsel could help
him draft postplea motions. Id. at 881. The Dunn court held that the language used by the trial
court conveyed the substance of Rule 605(c)(5) by reflecting that a court-appointed attorney
would be available for the defendant. Id. at 882.
-7-
¶ 21 While the trial court in Dunn did not explicitly advise the defendant that an
attorney would be appointed to assist him in the preparation of his postplea motions, the court’s
admonition implied an attorney would be available to the defendant during postplea proceedings.
In the instant case, on the other hand, no such inference can be drawn from the trial court’s
admonition. The trial court explicitly stated that appellate counsel would be appointed to assist
defendant during the appeal process.
¶ 22 We also reject the State’s argument that defendant’s prior criminal history and the
fact that he was represented by counsel at the time of the admonitions show he knew of the
availability of postplea counsel. Substantial compliance with Rule 605(c) is required regardless
of whether a defendant has previously been convicted of crimes or is represented by counsel. See
People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. App. 3d 379, 385 (2003) (holding that the trial court is required to
admonish a defendant concerning his right to appointed counsel pursuant to Rule 605(c)(5) even
when the defendant is represented by private counsel).
¶ 23 Finally, we reject the State’s contention that any issue flowing from the deficient
Rule 605(c) admonishments has been remedied because defendant ultimately received postplea
counsel and filed an amended motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court lacked
jurisdiction to hold these proceedings, as defendant failed to file a postplea motion within 30
days of the judgment. See People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459, ¶ 8 (“Under our usual rules, a trial
court loses jurisdiction to hear a cause at the end of the 30-day window following the entry of a
final judgment.”).
¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION
-8-
¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we reverse and remand to the trial court for new postplea
proceedings, including proper Rule 605(c) admonishments and the opportunity for defendant to
file a new postplea motion.
¶ 26 Reversed and remanded.
-9-