People v. Bridges
2017 IL App (2d) 150718
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Andre Bridges pled guilty to aggravated battery with a firearm in exchange for dismissal of first-degree murder; he received an 18-year sentence.
- Bridges filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea within 30 days, alleging ineffective counsel, coercion, and incompetence; that motion included an affidavit.
- Appointed counsel filed a detailed amended motion alleging duress (threats/violence against defendant’s mother) and inadequate/changed medication affecting competency, but did not attach an affidavit supporting facts dehors the record.
- Counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate of compliance; no affidavit or live testimony was presented at the hearing, and the defendant was absent from proceedings on both status and ruling dates.
- Trial court denied the amended motion, relying on the record and the court’s recollection of defendant’s demeanor during the plea; appellate court vacated and remanded for Rule 604(d) compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 604(d) was strictly complied with | State: pro se motion timely; amended motion before court; no need for further proof beyond plea colloquy | Bridges: counsel failed to support out-of-record allegations with affidavit; hearing was perfunctory and held in his absence | Vacated and remanded for strict compliance with Rule 604(d) (new certificate, opportunity for new motion, new hearing) |
| Whether counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate is trustworthy | State: certificate was filed and facially valid | Bridges: record shows counsel did not amend with required affidavit or present evidence, so certificate is inadequate | Court may examine record; certificate rejected as effectively noncompliant where duties not performed |
| Whether hearing satisfied Rule 604(d)’s purpose (fact-finding on out-of-record claims) | State: no evidence offered; prosecutor relied on plea colloquy | Bridges: hearing was perfunctory, no testimony or evidence, defendant absent | Hearing inadequate — more than pro forma required; evidentiary presentation or defendant’s presence needed for out-of-record claims |
| Whether remedy requires Strickland prejudice showing | State: remand should turn on whether counsel’s failures were ineffective assistance under Strickland | Bridges: remedy under Janes does not require Strickland showing | Court: Janes remedy applies without Strickland showing; strict Rule 604(d) compliance is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (failure to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) ordinarily requires remand for new motion and hearing)
- People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93 (1988) (failure to file required Rule 604(d) motion mandates dismissal of appeal)
- People v. Little, 337 Ill. App. 3d 619 (2003) (record may refute counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate)
- People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606 (2005) (motion unsupported by required documents/affidavits fails to adequately present out-of-record defects)
- People v. Keele, 210 Ill. App. 3d 898 (1991) (Rule 604(d) prohibits perfunctory motions/hearings; trial court must be allowed to fact-find)
- People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (2011) (remand steps when Rule 604(d) noncompliance is found)
- People v. Barnes, 263 Ill. App. 3d 736 (1994) (defendant should be present at motion hearing when out-of-record allegations require evidentiary resolution)