jurisdiction to hear that appeal because it was untimely.
People v. Peterson
, 2011 IL App (3d)100513, ¶ 75. The State filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court. Our supreme court denied the State's petition.
People v. Peterson
, No. 112875 (Ill. Nov. 30, 2011).However, in the exercise of its supervisory authority, our supreme court directed us to vacate our judgement and to address the State's appeal on the merits, vesting us with jurisdiction
As we explained in our initial opinion, the State’s interlocutory appeal on the hearsay issue wasuntimely under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2006) and the
, 50 Ill. 2d 136 (1971)), leaving this court with no jurisdiction to address the merits of theState’s appeal. See
People v. Holmes,
235 Ill. 2d 59, 67-68, 72 (2009);
People v. Williams
, 138 Ill. 2d377, 394 (1990). Thus, we were compelled to dismiss the appeal.In the exercise of its supervisory authority, our supreme court has now permitted us to addressthe merits of the State’s appeal. Only the supreme court may do this. “The appellate court's jurisdiction turns on litigants’ compliance with [the supreme court’s] rules” prescribing the time limitsfor filing appeals, and an appellate court has no "authority to excuse compliance" with those rules.(Internal quotation marks omitted.)
People v. Lyles
, 217 Ill. 2d 210, 216, 217 (2005). Thus, when anappeal is untimely under a supreme court rule, the appellate court has “no discretion to take any actionother than dismissing the appeal.”
at 217. Our supreme court, however, is not constrained by itsrules governing appellate jurisdiction.
The supreme court possesses a “broad” and “unlimited”supervisory authority over the Illinois court system.
McDunn v. Williams
, 156 Ill. 2d 288,302 (1993). This broad authority allows the supreme court to confer jurisdiction on the appellatecourts even when the appellant has flouted a jurisdictional deadline prescribed by a supreme court rule.See,
, 217 Ill. 2d at 217 (directing appellate court to reinstate appeal even though theappellate court had “acted entirely correctly” in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction becausethe defendant failed to f
ile a timely petition for rehearing after his appeal was dismissed for want of