People v. Bailey

This case presents question as to whether trial court has jurisdiction pursuant to revestment doctrine to consider defendant’s untimely motion to vacate his guilty plea and sentence to charge of criminal sexual abuse, where govt. did not challenge timeliness of motion, but rather argued that trial court’s admonishment that defendant was not required to register as sex offender did not render his guilty plea or sentence void. Appellate Court found that although revestment doctrine might apply to untimely post plea motions under Rule 604(d), govt.’s submission of argument on merits of defendant’s post plea motion, that was filed 3.5 years after his sentence, did not revest trial court with jurisdiction to consider his post plea motion, where state’s argument against post plea motion was not inconsistent with prior judgment. (Dissent filed.)