People v. Cone

2025 IL App (2d) 240474 · Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · September 25, 2025 · No. 2-24-0474

Summary

This Illinois Appellate Court opinion addresses whether a trial court's Rule 605(c) admonitions were sufficient following a negotiated guilty plea. The court held that the admonitions were deficient because they failed to clearly inform the defendant of his right to appointed counsel to assist in preparing a post-plea motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The case is remanded to the trial court for proper admonishments and further proceedings.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Writing for the Court
Justice Birkett; Justice McLaren; Justice Hutchinson; Justice Reyes
Jurisdiction
Illinois Appellate Court, Second District
Decision date
September 25, 2025
Docket number
2-24-0474
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County, No. 23-CF-2035
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
John S. Cone v. People
Disposition
remanded

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurewaiver

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court’s Rule 605(c) admonitions were sufficient.
  2. Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction when the appellant fails to file a motion to withdraw a negotiated guilty plea.
  3. Whether a guilty plea waives errors relating to post‑plea admonitions.

Holdings

  1. The trial court’s admonitions were deficient under Rule 605(c); the case is remanded for proper admonitions.
  2. The failure to file a motion to withdraw does not deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction.
  3. A guilty plea waives only pre‑plea errors; post‑plea Rule 605(c) errors are not waived.

Key quotations

Rule 605(c) “must be strictly complied with in that the admonitions must be given to a defendant who has pled guilty.” (¶8)
Failure to do so requires remand for proper admonishment. (¶8)

Factual background

John S. Cone pleaded guilty to a single count of aggravated driving under the influence and received a 24‑month probation sentence. At sentencing the trial court orally advised him of his right to appeal and the steps required, but the advice omitted the statutory requirement that counsel be appointed to assist with a post‑plea motion. Cone filed a timely notice of appeal but did not move to withdraw his plea.

Procedural history

Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to aggravated DUI and was sentenced to 24 months’ probation. The trial court gave oral admonitions that the appellate court found deficient under Rule 605(c). Defendant appealed without filing a post‑plea motion to withdraw. The State argued lack of jurisdiction and waiver; the appellate court rejected those arguments and remanded for proper admonitions.

Remand instructions

Remand to the trial court for defendant to receive proper admonitions under Rule 605(c) and for further proceedings as may be necessary under Rule 604(d).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…