Background
Allen White pleaded guilty to one count of armed violence and one count of aggravated battery in exchange for dismissal of nine other charges. The State’s factual basis alleged that White was rifling through Raymualdo Ortiz’s belongings in a gym locker and then stabbed Ortiz with a screwdriver, causing puncture wounds to his chest and arm.
The circuit court found that White entered the open plea knowingly and voluntarily. It imposed concurrent prison terms of 25 years for armed violence and 10 years for aggravated battery and advised White that any claim omitted from the required postplea motions would be waived. White’s counsel sought withdrawal of the plea or, alternatively, reconsideration of the sentences, arguing only that the court had inadequately considered mitigating circumstances. After those requests were denied, White appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) barred review because White had not raised either appellate claim in his postplea motions. On appeal, White argued that his two convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule and that the aggravated-battery sentence was an unauthorized extended-term sentence. Although the State conceded both alleged errors, the court concluded that it lacked authority to decide their merits.
Relying on the Illinois Supreme Court’s plurality decision in People v. Ratliff, the court held that an issue omitted from a Rule 604(d) postplea motion is waived and cannot receive plain-error review. It rejected White’s argument that the alleged errors’ characterization as second-prong or structural errors permitted review. Because White had been properly admonished, the court reasoned that he knowingly waived appellate review of any omitted issue, whether or not he knew of that specific issue when filing his postplea motions.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant appealing after a guilty plea must include each claimed error in a Rule 604(d) motion to withdraw the plea or reconsider the sentence.
- Under the court’s reading of Ratliff, plain-error review does not revive an issue waived through omission from a postplea motion.
- The court did not decide whether White’s convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule or whether his extended-term sentence was unauthorized, despite the State’s concessions.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the strict preservation requirements governing Illinois appeals following guilty pleas. Defense counsel must identify and include conviction-related and sentencing-related errors in the appropriate postplea motions, even when those errors might otherwise qualify for second-prong plain-error review.
The decision is a nonprecedential order filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may be cited only in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).