People v. Evans
2017 IL App (3d) 160019
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Paul J. Evans III pleaded guilty to home invasion and was sentenced to 12 years (85% to be served due to great bodily harm finding).
- Evans filed repeated motions to reconsider his sentence; each was denied and resulted in multiple appeals.
- This court repeatedly remanded because defense counsel failed to strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certification requirements.
- On Jan. 8, 2016 counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate that stated counsel was "the original counsel" at plea and sentencing and had examined the plea transcript, but did not state he examined the sentencing transcript.
- The version of Rule 604(d) in effect Dec. 3, 2015 briefly limited the certification requirement to motions to withdraw guilty pleas; the March 8, 2016 amendment removed that limiting clause. The court applied the March 8, 2016 amendment retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was required to file a Rule 604(d) certificate for a motion to reconsider sentence filed Jan. 8, 2016 | The December 3, 2015 rule meant a certificate was not required for a motion to reconsider sentence | The December 3, 2015 limiting clause was a scrivener’s error and the March 8, 2016 amendment should apply retroactively, so a certificate was required | Applied March 8, 2016 amendment retroactively; certificate requirement applies to motions to reconsider sentence |
| Whether the March 8, 2016 amendment can be applied retroactively | The State did not contest retroactivity | Evans argued the amendment is procedural and may be applied retroactively to restore longstanding protections | Court held the amendment is procedural, retroactive application is appropriate, and not applying it would produce inequitable results |
| Whether counsel strictly complied with Rule 604(d) in the Jan. 8, 2016 certificate | The State conceded counsel failed strict compliance but argued remand unnecessary because Evans had full and fair hearings previously | Evans argued strict compliance is mandatory and prior proceedings were void or insufficient | Court held counsel failed strict compliance (did not certify examination of sentencing transcript) and remand is required |
| Whether remand is unnecessary under People v. Shirley because Evans already had full and fair opportunity | The State argued Shirley permits forgiveness of technical defects when a full and fair hearing occurred | Evans argued prior purported compliant hearing was void for lack of jurisdiction, so no valid full-and-fair postplea hearing occurred | Court distinguished Shirley: here no compliant certificate was ever filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, so Shirley does not bar remand; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (requires strict compliance with Rule 604(d) and prescribes remand as remedy for noncompliance)
- People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (1998) (forgives certain technical Rule 604(d) defects when defendant already received a full and fair hearing)
- People v. Steinmetz, 110 Ill. App. 3d 439 (1982) (addresses requirement that counsel certify examination of transcripts)
- People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2008) (substantive compliance with Rule 604(d) is necessary to ensure fairness)
- Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill. 2d 318 (2006) (procedural amendments may be applied retroactively)