Here, defendant did not file his late notice of appeal in the wrong reviewing court but, instead, filed it in the circuit court. Our conclusion is supported by this court's prior decision in Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Comm'n, 387 Ill.App.3d 806, 810–11, 328 Ill.Dec. 86, 903 N.E.2d 746, 749–50 (2009), where we held Rule 365 did not apply to an analogous situation where the petitioner mistakenly delivered his notice of appeal to this court before the expiration of the due date when the supreme court rule required it to be filed in the circuit court. We explained our holding as follows:

Moreover, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 365 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), which provides for the transfer of a case to the proper reviewing court when the case has been appealed to the wrong court, also does not apply in this case to make defendant's notice timely. Here, defendant did not file his late notice of appeal in the wrong reviewing court but, instead, filed it in the circuit court. Our conclusion is supported by this court's prior decision in Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Comm'n, 387 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810-11, 903 N.E.2d 746, 749-50 (2009), where we held Rule 365 did not apply to an analogous situation where the petitioner mistakenly delivered his notice of appeal to this court before the expiration of the due date when the supreme court rule required it to be filed in the circuit court. We explained our holding as follows:

In the case of many Illinois state employees, discharge requires a hearing, written approval by the director of the employing agency, and judicial review of the director's division. Ill. Administration Code, title 80, §§ 1.300, 302.705, 302.720, 302.750; Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 387 Ill.App.3d 806, 328 Ill.Dec. 86, 903 N.E.2d 746, 748 (2009); Illinois Department of Revenue v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 357 Ill.App.3d 352, 293 Ill.Dec. 79, 827 N.E.2d 960, 974–75 (2005). So it can take a long time for a discharge to ripen, though we don't know whether these provisions were applicable to this plaintiff.

Waukegan Hospitality Group, LLC, v. Stretch's Sports Bar &Grill Corp., 2024 IL 129277, ¶ 14. Compliance with this requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, and "[n]either the circuit court nor the appellate court has the authority to excuse compliance with the filing requirement of Rule 303." Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Comm'n, 387 Ill.App.3d 806, 810, 903 N.E.2d 746, 749 (2009). Watson's notice of appeal did not comply.

The Merit Board has not appealed the circuit court's finding against it, and therefore the issue is not properly before us. See Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 387 Ill.App.3d 806, 810 (2009) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). Even if the Merit Board had filed a notice of appeal, our holding would have been the same as the circuit court.

"Neither the circuit court nor the appellate court has the authority to excuse compliance with the filing requirement of Rule 303." Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 387 Ill.App.3d 806, 810 (2009).

Rule 365 has no application where, as here, the defendants directed their appeal to the correct appellate district but failed to timely file their notice of appeal with the clerk of the circuit court. See Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Comm'n, 387 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810-11 (2009); First Bank v. Phillips, 379 Ill. App. 3d 186, 188 (2008).

The Village and Rosenthal did not file their notice of appeal in the circuit court until April 25, 2019. ¶ 22 In their appellee's brief, the Guns Save Life plaintiffs argue that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal with the clerk of the circuit court deprived this court of jurisdiction. In support of their position, the Guns Save Life plaintiffs rely primarily on First Bank v. Phillips, 379 Ill. App. 3d 186 (2008) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where a notice of appeal was filed in the appellate court on day 30 but the notice was not filed in the circuit court until one week later), and Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 387 Ill. App. 3d 806 (2009) (following First Bank). ¶ 23 In their reply brief, the Village and Rosenthal explain that, on the evening of April 22, 2019, their counsel e-filed the supporting record in the appellate court and then also "inadvertently" filed the notice of appeal in the appellate court "rather than opening a second electronic filing in the Circuit Court." According to the Village and Rosenthal, when their counsel learned of his error the next morning, he "worked with the Clerk of the Appellate Court to correct it."

Consequently, the July 12, 2017, notice of appeal was not timely. See Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Comm'n, 387 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810-11 (2009) (dismissing appeal where, in violation of Rule 303(a)(1), the appellant erroneously filed his notice of appeal in the appellate court instead of the circuit court); First Bank v. Phillips, 379 Ill. App. 3d 186, 188 (2008) (same). ¶ 15 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we grant respondent's motion to dismiss claimant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and we deny claimant's "Motion to File Notice of Appeal Late or Relation back to Attempted Filing of July 12, 2017."

Although there is a dearth of precedent directly so holding, the file-stamp date has generally been considered by this court as the time of receipt by the clerk of the court. See Childs v. Pinnacle Health Care, LLC, 399 Ill. App. 3d 167, 177-78 (2010) ("Since the notice of appeal reached the circuit court clerk prior to its due date, we consider the date of filing to be the date that it was received by the clerk as evidenced by the file stamp."); Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Comm'n, 387 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810 (2009) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was file-stamped in the circuit court more than 30 days after the final judgment); People v. Rogers, 372 Ill. App. 3d 859, 861-62 (2007) (file-stamped copy of late notice of appeal was sufficient evidence that late notice of appeal was properly filed so as to invoke appellate jurisdiction); People v. Salb, 224 Ill. App. 3d 610, 612 (1991) (appeal dismissed where the notice of appeal was not filed-stamped until more than 30 days after the judgment). The estate provides no contrary authority for disregarding the file stamp date indicated on the notice of appeal.