People v. Dominguez

Defendant, who was Spanish-speaking, pled guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. Appellate court dismissed appeal due to failure to file postplea motions. Defendant appealed to Supreme Court, claiming inadequate postplea admonishments. Circuit court substantially complied with Rule 605(c). Record failed to reflect that form Defendant signed, a nearly verbatim recitation of Rule 605(c), was read by interpreter or translated, but Defendant told court that he understood the form, and interpreter was present during his plea. Although Rule 605(c) is mandatory requirement of admonishment, Rule provides that a Defendant must be substantially advised of Rule, sufficiently to impart essence or substance of Rule, and entire contents of Rule need not be read verbatim. (THOMAS, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring; BURKE, KILBRIDE, and FREEMAN, dissenting.)