Automated Summary
Key Facts
Defendant Michelle M. Blessent pleaded guilty in April 2024 to two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1)) and one count of grooming (720 ILCS 5/11-25(a)). She was sentenced to an aggregate 45 years' imprisonment. Defense counsel failed to file required Rule 604(d) certificates with the motions to reconsider sentence, leading to a summary remand in January 2025. On remand, defense counsel submitted compliant certificates but did not file new motions or request a new hearing. The trial court accepted the certificates and ordered new notices of appeal filed, but did not enter a new written order or hold a new hearing. As a result, the notices of appeal filed on March 25, 2025 were untimely under Rule 604(d), which requires appeals to be filed within 30 days of the trial court's order disposing of motions directed against the final judgment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to this procedural failure.
Issues
- Although defense counsel filed facially compliant Rule 604(d) certificates on remand, the trial court allowed counsel to adopt the prior motion to reconsider sentence without conducting a new hearing. The court failed to enter a written order following the purported hearing, violating the remand directive to hold a new hearing and issue a new judgment. This non-compliance with Rule 604(d) and the appellate court's mandate precluded restarting the 30-day appeal period, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as defendant's notices of appeal were untimely. This occurred because the trial court did not hold a new hearing or enter a new judgment on the motions to reconsider sentence after remand under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d). The 30-day period for filing a new notice of appeal only restarts with a new trial court order disposing of the motion, which was not issued here. Consequently, the notices filed on March 25, 2025, exceeded the original 30-day deadline, rendering the appeal jurisdictionally defective.
Holdings
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant's notices of appeal were untimely filed. The trial court failed to conduct a new hearing or enter a new judgment on the postsentencing motions following remand, which prevented restarting the 30-day appeal period required under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d). The State confessed error, but the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to proceed.
Remedies
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as defendant's notices of appeal were untimely filed. The trial court failed to enter a new order on defendant's postsentencing motions following remand, leaving the original judgments as the only judgments of record.
Legal Principles
The court applied Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) to determine that the trial court's failure to hold a new hearing on the defendant's motions to reconsider sentence following remand rendered the subsequent notices of appeal untimely. The decision emphasized that appellate courts lack jurisdiction when trial courts do not comply with remand mandates, citing People v. Kerkering and People v. Harris.
Precedent Name
- People v. Smith
- People v. Walls
- People v. Kerkering
- People v. Harris
Cited Statute
- Criminal Code of 2012
- Criminal Code of 2022
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules
Judge Name
- J. Jason Chambers
- Vancil
- Zenoff
- Lannerd
Passage Text
- The State confesses error. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as defendant's notices of appeal are untimely because the trial court failed to enter a new order on defendant's postsentencing motions.
- Due to the trial court's failure to enter a new order on defendant's motions to reconsider sentence following remand, there was no order restarting the 30-day 'clock' for filing a new notice of appeal.
- It is well settled that, where an appellate court's mandate remands a case with specific directions that are precise and unambiguous to do some act, the circuit court must follow the direction of the mandate.