People v. Easton
2017 IL App (2d) 141180
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jordan Easton pleaded guilty to aggravated unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and four counts of unlawful use of a credit card; the trial court sentenced him to 10 years for the aggravated offense and concurrent lesser terms for the others.
- Defense counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate stating she consulted with Easton “to ascertain his contentions of error in the imposition of the sentence or the entry of plea of guilty,” and Easton moved to reconsider sentence; the trial court denied the motion.
- Easton appealed, arguing the Rule 604(d) certificate was insufficient because it used “or” rather than “and,” and did not state counsel read the sentencing transcript, contrary to the amended Rule 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).
- The question was whether the supreme court’s amendment (changing “or” to “and” and requiring reading the sentencing transcript) applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal.
- The appellate court concluded the amendment is procedural, applies retroactively, and therefore counsel’s certificate was insufficient; the circuit court’s judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a valid Rule 604(d) certificate, leave to file new motions if warranted, and a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 604(d) certificate stating consultation about errors in the "sentence or the entry of plea" complies with current law | The State argued the certificate complied with the rule as it read when filed and should be upheld | Easton argued the amended Rule 604(d) requires counsel to certify consultation about both the sentence and the plea and to have read the sentencing transcript; thus the certificate is insufficient | The court held the amended rule is procedural and retroactive; the certificate was insufficient because it used "or" and did not state counsel read the sentencing transcript |
| Whether the amendment to Rule 604(d) ("or" -> "and"; require reading sentencing transcript) applies retroactively | The State argued the amendment should not apply retroactively (cited Yarbor) | Easton argued the amendment is procedural and expands protections, so it should apply to direct appeals | The court held the amendment is procedural, does not impair vested rights, and applies retroactively |
| Appropriate remedy when certificate is insufficient | The State implicitly maintained the denial of relief should stand | Easton sought vacatur and remand for compliance with amended rule | The court vacated the judgment and remanded for filing a valid Rule 604(d) certificate, opportunity to file new motion(s) if necessary, and a new motion hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (Ill. 2014) (construed "or" in Rule 604(d) to mean "and" to effectuate the rule's purpose)
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (Ill. 1994) (requires strict compliance with supreme court rules)
- People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (Ill. 2011) (remedy when Rule 604(d) defects require remand for new certificate and motion hearing)
- People v. Mineau, 2014 IL App (2d) 110666-B (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (2d Dist.) (initial appellate decision finding certificate acceptable where it mirrored then-effective rule)
- People v. Evans, 2017 IL App (3d) 160019 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017) (3d Dist.) (held the amended Rule 604(d) applies retroactively)
- People v. Yarbor, 383 Ill. App. 3d 676 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (used by State to argue against retroactivity where amendment imposed new duties affecting completed transactions)