People v. Easton
2018 IL 122187
| Ill. | 2019Background
- Jordan Easton pled guilty in 2014 to six offenses across six cases and received concurrent prison sentences; post‑sentencing, counsel filed a motion to reconsider and a Rule 604(d) certificate.
- At the time the certificate was filed (Feb. 6, 2013 version in effect), Rule 604(d) required counsel to certify consultation with the defendant to ascertain contentions of error “in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty” and to have examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea.
- The circuit court denied the motion; Easton appealed in November 2014.
- While the appeal was pending, Rule 604(d) was amended (effective Dec. 3, 2015) to require certification that counsel consulted about contentions of error “in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty” and that counsel reviewed both the plea and sentencing hearing transcripts.
- The appellate court held the amended Rule 604(d) applied retroactively to Easton’s pending appeal and that counsel’s certificate was deficient under the amended rule, vacated the circuit court judgment, and remanded for new postplea proceedings.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, reversed the retroactivity holding, but affirmed remand on different grounds: counsel’s certificate failed to comply with the preamendment rule as construed by this Court in Tousignant, so new postplea proceedings were required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Easton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of Rule 604(d) governs? | Pre‑amendment rule (in effect when notice of appeal filed) should control. | Amended rule (became effective while appeal pending) applies retroactively to pending cases. | The amendment is procedural but did not apply because there were no ongoing postplea proceedings when amended; pre‑amendment rule controls. |
| Did counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate comply with the applicable rule? | Certificate tracked textual "or" and thus satisfied the pre‑amendment rule. | Certificate insufficient because it did not expressly certify consultation about both plea and sentence errors as required by Tousignant. | Certificate insufficient: under Tousignant the consultation requirement means "and," so the certificate using "or" failed to assure consultation about both plea and sentencing errors. |
| Does Tousignant’s construction require a particular form of certificate? | State: literal text suffices; Tousignant’s construction is satisfied by the certificate’s wording. | Easton: Tousignant requires an express certification that both plea and sentence were discussed. | Tousignant requires counsel to certify consultation about both plea and sentence; a certificate that uses "or" does not meet that requirement. |
| Remedy for noncompliant certificate? | No remand if substantial compliance; or remand only if prejudice shown. | Remand for new postplea proceedings including new certificate, motion and hearing. | Strict compliance is required; remand for new postplea proceedings (new certificate, possible new motion, and hearing). |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for determining retroactive application of new law).
- People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306 (Ill. 2017) (applies Landgraf framework to Illinois court rules and discusses Statute on Statutes).
- People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (Ill. 2014) (construed Rule 604(d) consultation requirement so that "or" is read as "and"—counsel must consult about plea and sentence).
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (Ill. 1994) (requires strict compliance with Rule 604(d) certificates).