Background
Trimarion D. Howell was charged on May 8, 2024, with four counts of first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and attempted armed robbery stemming from separate incidents. On May 8, 2025, Howell entered a guilty plea to an amended count of first degree murder with the firearm enhancement language removed, and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The trial court found the plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
On June 18, 2025, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Howell to 45 years in prison plus 3 years mandatory supervised release. The trial court provided admonishments regarding Howell’s appellate rights, but only addressed the requirement to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Howell later filed motions to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied on August 4, 2025. Howell appealed, arguing the trial court failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b).
The appellate court held that the trial court did not substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b) when admonishing Howell at sentencing. Rule 605(b) applies to non-negotiated guilty pleas and requires trial courts to admonish defendants about their appellate rights, including the necessity of filing either a motion to reconsider the sentence or a motion to withdraw the guilty plea within 30 days. The court found that Howell’s plea was not negotiated because the State made no sentencing concessions.
The trial court’s admonishments were deficient because they failed to inform Howell that he must file a motion to reconsider his sentence to preserve his right to challenge the sentence on appeal. The admonishments also failed to explain that if such a motion were allowed, his sentence would be modified. By failing to convey the substance of Rule 605(b), the trial court compromised Howell’s appellate rights and violated fundamental fairness. The court emphasized that trial courts must substantially comply with the rule by conveying its essence to the defendant, even if not reading it verbatim.