______________________________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 12, 2002, defendant, Charles Goewey, pleadedguilty to one charge of escape (720 ILCS 5/31-6(a) (West 2002))and two charges of burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1 (West 2002)). Priorto the plea, defendant and the State agreed that the sentenceswould run concurrently, but that they would have to runconsecutively to the charge for possession of a controlledsubstance that was pending before another court. After the Staterecited the factual basis for the pleas, the trial courtdetermined that the State presented an adequate factual basis andthat the pleas were voluntary and understandingly and knowinglymade.

On May 7, 2002, the trial court sentenced defendant tothree six-year sentences for the escape and burglary counts. These sentences were to run concurrently to one another andconsecutively to separate sentences of possession of a controlledsubstance and aggravated battery. After sentencing defendant,the court did not properly admonish him pursuant to Supreme CourtRule 605(c) (Official Reports Advance Sheet No. 21 (October 17,2001), R. 605(c), eff. October 1, 2001) regarding the actionsnecessary to preserve his right to appeal. Specifically, thetrial court incorrectly indicated that if defendant filed amotion to reconsider his sentence within 30 days, that would beenough to preserve his right to appeal.

On May 22, 2002, defendant filed a pro se motion forreduction of sentence in all three cases. Counsel was appointedto represent defendant and a hearing was held on the motion onAugust 27, 2002. The trial court denied the motion. This appealfollowed.

In this matter, the State concedes that defendant wasimproperly admonished pursuant to Rule 605(c). We must agree. Atrial judge must strictly comply with the dictates of the rule,and fundamental fairness requires that when the trial courterroneously advises a negotiated-plea defendant that a motion toreconsider the sentence will preserve his right to appeal, thecause be remanded to the trial court with instructions tocorrectly admonish the defendant and provide him with anopportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. People v. Diaz, 192Ill. 2d 211, 226-27, 735 N.E.2d 605, 613 (2000).

Because the trial court failed to comply with theadmonishment requirements of Supreme Court Rule 605(c), we remandthe cause with directions to properly admonish defendant underRule 605(c) and give him the opportunity to move to have hisguilty plea withdrawn, should he so desire.

Remanded with directions.

APPLETON and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.