¶1specially concurring:
¶2I agree with the result reached in this case that the trial court retained jurisdiction to address the merits of the defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence despite the defendant’s previously filed notice of appeal and, therefore, the cause must be remanded for the trial court to decide the merits of the defendant’s motion. I write separately to clarify my reasons for my agreement with the majority. Section 5 — 8—1(c) of the Code provides:
“If a motion [to reconsider sentence] is timely filed within 30 days after the sentence is imposed, then for purposes of perfecting an appeal, a final judgment shall not be considered to have been entered until the motion to reduce a sentence has been decided by order entered by the trial court.” 730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—1(c) (West 1998).
¶3In Rowe, this court interpreted that section to mean that the filing of a motion to reconsider sentence within the 30-day period after the sentence was imposed negates the effect of the notice of appeal and re-vests the trial court with jurisdiction. Rowe, 291 Ill. App. 3d at 1021. The supreme court’s subsequent decision in Bounds understandably did not mention section 5 — 8—1(c) of the Code, nor did it mention Rowe and similar cases, for the simple reason that Bounds did not involve a motion to reconsider sentence. Similarly, Laurie, relied upon by Bounds, did not involve a motion to reconsider sentence.