Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
41 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Fostergreen2 sentences2022People v. Foster, 171 Ill. 2d 469, 471 (1996). ¶ 11 While a defendant’s failure to comply with the Rule 604(d) postplea motion requirement generally precludes a reviewing court from considering a defendant’s appeal, the supreme court has adopted an admonition exception to this requirement. 2015The defendant should have been admonished under Rule 605(a). ¶ 26 The defendant argues that the admonition exception adopted by the supreme court in People v. Foster, 171 Ill. 2d 469 (1996), should be applied to appeals from faulty Rule 605(a) admonitions so that the appellate court can reach the merits of an appeal. | 5 | 12 |
People v. Flowersgreen2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 17 However, under the admonition exception to the motion requirement, if the trial court failed to give defendant sufficient admonishments under Rule 605 and defendant attempts to appeal -6- No. 1-23-0691 without first filing the required postplea motion, the appeal is not dismissed. 2024Id. at 301 . ¶ 17 OSAD further argues that the admonition exception does not apply in the present matter because the court sufficiently admonished the defendant pursuant to Rule 605(c). | 3 | 8 |
People v. Lloydgreen2 sentences2022People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. 2003See People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Willsgreen2 sentences2010Ed. 2d at 274 , 109 S. Ct. at 2944 ; Wills, 61 Ill. 2d at 111 (noting that the court must consider whether a new rule should apply retroactively or prospectively, and determining that the admonition requirement announced would apply prospectively to guilty pleas taken subsequent to the date the opinion was filed). 2 However, now that the issue of retroactivity is squarely before us, we recognize that a better course in Whitfield would have been to forgo the announcement of a new rule, as the rule announced cannot be evenhandedly applied to defendant Whitfield and to all others similarly situat 2010Ed. 2d at 274 , 109 S. Ct. at 2944 ; Wills, 61 Ill. 2d at 111 (noting -15- that the court must consider whether a new rule should apply retroactively or prospectively, and determining that the admonition requirement announced would apply prospectively to guilty pleas taken subsequent to the date the opinion was filed).2 However, now that the issue of retroactivity is squarely before us, we recognize that a better course in Whitfield would have been to forgo the announcement of a new rule, as the rule announced cannot be evenhandedly applied to defendant Whitfield and to all others similarly si | 2 | 2 |
People v. Munozgreen2 sentences2003See People v. Munoz , 319 Ill. 2003See People v. Munoz, 319 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Alvarez v. Skrydgreen2 sentences2025However, the admonition exception “cannot restore jurisdiction to the circuit court after 30 days from entry of judgment.” Id. 2025Further, he contends that we granted him leave to file a late notice of appeal and, thus, may apply the admonition exception where the trial court failed to substantially comply with Rule 605(c). ¶ 18 Despite defendant’s contentions, the law is settled that the admonition exception “cannot restore jurisdiction to the [trial] court after 30 days from entry of judgment.” See Skryd, 241 Ill. 2d at 42 . | 1 | 6 |
People v. McKaygreen2 sentences2008People v. McKay, 282 Ill. 2008People v. McKay, 282 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2006Consequently, we must determine whether this impacts our holding in Wallace that the appellate court must dismiss the appeal of a post-guilty-plea sentence where the defendant fails to first file a written motion for reconsideration with the trial court. [ People v. Wallace, 143 Ill.2d 59, 61 , 155 Ill.Dec. 821 , 570 N.E.2d 334 (1991).] Defendant asks this court to adopt the `admonition exception' applied by several panels of our appellate court. * * * We agree with those appellate decisions that have applied the admonition exception. 2006Consequently, we must determine whether this impacts our holding in Wallace that the appellate court must dismiss the appeal of a post-guilty-plea sentence where the defendant fails to first file a written motion for reconsideration with the trial court. [People v. Wallace, 143 Ill. 2d 59, 61 (1991).] Defendant asks this court to adopt the ‘admonition exception’ applied by several panels of our appellate court. *** We agree with those appellate decisions that have applied the admonition exception. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gregorygreen1 sentence2025People v. Curry, 2019 IL App (3d) 160783, ¶ 15 ; People v. Gregory, 379 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vernongreen1 sentence2025This is equally true whether a defendant proceeds to trial or pleads guilty; the “knowing and intelligent” standard is the same in either case. ¶ 30 Defendant also argues that to allow forfeiture in these circumstances “would lead to Kafkaesque results” because, as we stated in People v. Vernόn, 396 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2010Teague, 489 U.S. at 316 , 103 L. 2010Teague, 489 U.S. at 316 , 103 L. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences2010Ed. 2d at 274 , 109 S. Ct. at 2944 ; Wills, 61 Ill. 2d at 111 (noting that the court must consider whether a new rule should apply retroactively or prospectively, and determining that the admonition requirement announced would apply prospectively to guilty pleas taken subsequent to the date the opinion was filed). 2 However, now that the issue of retroactivity is squarely before us, we recognize that a better course in Whitfield would have been to forgo the announcement of a new rule, as the rule announced cannot be evenhandedly applied to defendant Whitfield and to all others similarly situat 2010Ed. 2d at 274 , 109 S. Ct. at 2944 ; Wills, 61 Ill. 2d at 111 (noting -15- that the court must consider whether a new rule should apply retroactively or prospectively, and determining that the admonition requirement announced would apply prospectively to guilty pleas taken subsequent to the date the opinion was filed).2 However, now that the issue of retroactivity is squarely before us, we recognize that a better course in Whitfield would have been to forgo the announcement of a new rule, as the rule announced cannot be evenhandedly applied to defendant Whitfield and to all others similarly si | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Crump
green
2 sentences2006Crump, 344 Ill. 2006Crump, 344 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1997First, it is well settled that a defendant may waive his constitutional right to be present at every stage of trial and may not thereafter "claim any advantage on account of his absence.” People v. Johnston, 160 Ill. 1997First, it is well settled that a defendant may waive his constitutional right to be present at every stage of trial and may not thereafter "claim any advantage on account of his absence." People v. Johnston , 160 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Ryant
green
2 sentences1979People v. Ryant (1976), 41 Ill. 1979People v. Ryant (1976), 41 Ill. | 2 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Curry
green
1 sentence2025People v. Curry, 2019 IL App (3d) 160783, ¶ 15 ; People v. Gregory, 379 Ill. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hood
green
1 sentence2024Hood, 387 Ill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Claudin
green
2 sentences2023Id. ¶ 34 The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendant’s failure to file a Rule 604(d) motion was not encompassed within the admonition exception. 2023Id. at 535 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2009Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 50 , 838 N.E.2d at 934 . 2009Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d at 50 , 838 N.E.2d at 934 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Dunn
green
1 sentence2006Defendant 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 guilty, modify or reconsider the sentence,” when his only recourse was to file a motion to vacate his negotiated guilty plea. 210 Ill. 2d R. 605(c)(2); Dunn, 342 Ill. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Heidorn
green
2 sentences1993App. 3d 933, 936-37 , 449 N.E.2d 568, 572 , for the proposition that it is improper for a trial judge to make comments before the jury regarding his opinion of the credibility of a witness or of counsel’s argument, because of the "judge’s great influence over the jury.” However, in that case, the appellate court, after finding improper the court’s admonition to defense counsel to "not create false issues,” and its statement that it did not understand defense counsel’s argument, affirmed the conviction because the defendant was unable to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the comment. 1993Heidorn, 114 Ill. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Patterson v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1992In this respect, we find the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Patterson v. Illinois (1988), 487 U.S. 285 , 101 L. 1992In this respect, we find the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Patterson v. Illinois (1988), 487 U.S. 285 , 101 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
The People v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1971People v. Smith (1960), 18 Ill.2d 547, 553 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence1967People v. Smith, 66 Ill App2d 257, 213 NE2d 135 . (c) Defense counsel sought to call Officer Casey, a witness for the prosecution, as a hostile witness. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.