People v. Harris — improper plea-appeal warnings require a remand

Case
The People of the State of Illinois v. Taujalon Harris
Court
Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District
Judge
Justice Zenoff; Justice Lannerd; Justice Vancil
Date Decided
November 3, 2026
Docket No.
4-26-0318
Topics
guilty pleas; DUI; appellate procedure; Rule 605(c)
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Taujalon Harris pleaded guilty under a fully negotiated agreement to driving under the influence of alcohol. The Peoria County circuit court sentenced him to supervision and dismissed an improper-lane-usage charge.

After accepting the plea, the court told Harris that he had appeal rights and, within 30 days, had to file a motion to withdraw his plea stating all grounds for relief. It also mentioned counsel and a free transcript for an indigent defendant. Harris filed a pro se notice of appeal the same day, without first filing a postplea motion.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District held that the trial court did not substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c), which governs admonitions after a negotiated guilty plea. The State confessed error.

The oral warnings did not say that the required postplea motion had to be written, explain that a successful motion would vacate the plea, sentence, and judgment and set the charges for trial, or advise that dismissed charges could be reinstated at the State’s request. The court also failed to clearly tell Harris that appointed counsel and a free transcript were available to help prepare the postplea motion. The written plea form did not cure the errors because it tied those rights to an appeal and omitted the waiver warning.

Key Takeaways

  • Negotiated-plea defendants must be adequately advised of the Rule 604(d) steps required before appealing.
  • Rule 605(c) requires notice that the postplea motion must be written and of the consequences if it is granted.
  • Indigent defendants must be clearly advised of counsel and transcript rights for preparing the postplea motion, not merely for an appeal.

Why It Matters

Ordinarily, failure to file the required Rule 604(d) motion would require dismissal of an appeal. But deficient Rule 605(c) admonitions trigger the admonition exception because a defendant cannot fairly be held to procedural requirements he was not adequately told about.

The court remanded with directions to give proper Rule 605(c) admonitions and allow Harris the opportunity to file a motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the judgment.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top