admonishment requirement in Illinois

2024People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (1988). ¶ 11 However, under the admonishment exception to this rule, the cause is remanded rather than dismissed “[i]f the trial court fails to give the admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and the 5 defendant subsequently attempts to appeal without first filing the motions required by Rule 604(d).” People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003).

2023Under the admonishment exception to this rule, the cause is remanded rather than dismissed “[i]f the trial court fails to give the admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and the 2 defendant subsequently attempts to appeal without first filing the motions required by Rule 604(d).” People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003). ¶7 When imposing a sentence for a negotiated guilty plea, Rule 605(c) requires the circuit court to advise the defendant: “(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

2024The supreme court explained that, in Garner, the court rejected the State’s argument that the bond slip was sufficient to satisfy the admonishment requirement in section 113-4(e) because, “while it provided a warning of the penalties for failures to appear, it did not provide any warning of the possibility of trial in absentia.” (Emphasis added.) Id. (citing Garner, 147 Ill. 2d at 478 ). ¶ 104 It is clear from all of the supreme court precedent that the “essence of the rule” is that the defendant understands that, if he or she fails to appear, trial may proceed in his or her absence. ¶ 105 Thi

2011People v. Partee, 125 Ill.2d 24, 41 , 125 Ill.Dec. 302 , 530 N.E.2d 460 (1988).

2024People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (1988). ¶ 11 However, under the admonishment exception to this rule, the cause is remanded rather than dismissed “[i]f the trial court fails to give the admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and the 5 defendant subsequently attempts to appeal without first filing the motions required by Rule 604(d).” People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003).

2023People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (1988). 7 ¶ 22 However, under the admonishment exception to this rule, the cause is remanded rather than dismissed “[i]f the trial court fails to give the admonishments set forth in Rule 605 and the defendant subsequently attempts to appeal without first filing the motions required by Rule 604(d).” People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291, 301 (2003).

2006Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301 ; People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 30 (1998).

2006Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 301 ; People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 30 (1998).

2003See People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill.

2003See People v. Lloyd , 338 Ill.

2024The supreme court explained that, in Garner, the court rejected the State’s argument that the bond slip was sufficient to satisfy the admonishment requirement in section 113-4(e) because, “while it provided a warning of the penalties for failures to appear, it did not provide any warning of the possibility of trial in absentia.” (Emphasis added.) Id. (citing Garner, 147 Ill. 2d at 478 ). ¶ 104 It is clear from all of the supreme court precedent that the “essence of the rule” is that the defendant understands that, if he or she fails to appear, trial may proceed in his or her absence. ¶ 105 Thi

2024The supreme court explained that, in Garner, the court rejected the State’s argument that the bond slip was sufficient to satisfy the admonishment requirement in section 113-4(e) because, “while it provided a warning of the penalties for failures to appear, it did not provide any warning of the possibility of trial in absentia.” (Emphasis added.) Id. (citing Garner, 147 Ill. 2d at 478 ). ¶ 104 It is clear from all of the supreme court precedent that the “essence of the rule” is that the defendant understands that, if he or she fails to appear, trial may proceed in his or her absence. ¶ 105 Thi

2024The supreme court explained that, in Garner, the court rejected the State’s argument that the bond slip was sufficient to satisfy the admonishment requirement in section 113-4(e) because, “while it provided a warning of the penalties for failures to appear, it did not provide any warning of the possibility of trial in absentia.” (Emphasis added.) Id. (citing Garner, 147 Ill. 2d at 478 ). ¶ 104 It is clear from all of the supreme court precedent that the “essence of the rule” is that the defendant understands that, if he or she fails to appear, trial may proceed in his or her absence. ¶ 105 Thi

2022People v. Liss, 2012 IL App (2d) 101191, ¶ 17 .

2025People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449, 466 (2005); see also People v. Crump, 344 Ill. App. 3d 558, 563 (2003) (where defendant was not prejudiced by the missing verbiage of Rule 605(c)(6), the trial court’s admonishments were sufficient and the admonishment exception did not apply). ¶ 28 Here, we find that the trial court substantially admonished defendant in accordance with Rule 605(c).

2025People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449, 466 (2005); see also People v. Crump, 344 Ill. App. 3d 558, 563 (2003) (where defendant was not prejudiced by the missing verbiage of Rule 605(c)(6), the trial court’s admonishments were sufficient and the admonishment exception did not apply). ¶ 28 Here, we find that the trial court substantially admonished defendant in accordance with Rule 605(c).

2023Specifically, defendant argues that the court failed to admonish defendant personally in open court and determine that defendant understood (1) the specific allegations in the petition to revoke, (2) that he had a right to a hearing with an attorney present and a right to appointed counsel, (3) that he had a right to a hearing where defendant could confront witnesses and present evidence, and (4) regarding his extended-term eligibility. ¶ 11 At the outset, we note that defendant acknowledges that he did not raise his claim in a motion to reconsider sentence but he contends that his claim is no

2022See, e.g., People v. Serio, 357 Ill.

2020See -6- People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 67 , 89 N.E.3d 675 (“The trial court’s questions about those principles, particularly the defendant’s presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proof, constitute preliminary instructions to potential jurors on how they must evaluate the evidence, so a Rule 431(b) violation may affect the verdict.”).

2020See -6- People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 67 , 89 N.E.3d 675 (“The trial court’s questions about those principles, particularly the defendant’s presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proof, constitute preliminary instructions to potential jurors on how they must evaluate the evidence, so a Rule 431(b) violation may affect the verdict.”).

1971In People v. Outten (1961), 22 Ill.2d 146, 148, 149 , the defendant was *414 advised that the court could determine the minimum and maximum penalties and that the penalty was "an indeterminate term of not less than two years nor more than life imprisonment." This was held to be sufficient when defendant answered that he understood, over his later claim that he did not understand the meaning of the terms "indeterminate", "minimum" or "maximum".

1971See also People v. Evans (1970), 45 Ill.2d 265 , 268 wherein the court reaffirmed that the admonishment requirement must be read in a realistic manner to determine whether defendant thoroughly understood.