People v. Fricks
2017 IL App (2d) 160493
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Leonard R. Fricks pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and received a 60-year sentence, including a 20-year firearm enhancement.
- After plea but before sentencing, Fricks moved to withdraw his plea alleging counsel gave false assurances; counsel Michael J. Phillips later moved to reduce sentence post-sentencing.
- On initial appeal the court vacated denial of the motion because counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate was deficient and remanded for compliance.
- On remand, new counsel Gary Pumilia filed an amended motion to withdraw the plea with a proper Rule 604(d) certificate and told the trial court he was “standing on and adopting” the earlier motion to reduce sentence.
- The trial court reiterated its prior denial but held no new hearing on the motion to reduce sentence; no further argument or presentation occurred on remand.
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s denial and remanded again for a new hearing on the motion to reduce sentence because the remand procedures required by Rule 604(d) were not effectuated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand requires a new hearing on a motion to reconsider sentence when counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate was deficient | State: defendant had right to a hearing but effectively waived it through counsel’s decision to forego presentation | Fricks: remand required a new hearing; prior proceedings insufficient because certificate defect deprived him of procedural protections | Court: A new hearing on remand is mandatory; trial court’s failure to hold one requires vacatur and remand |
| Whether a defendant (through counsel) may decline the new-hearing remedy on remand | State: Lindsay permits defendant/counsel to decline the hearing | Fricks: defendant cannot be bound to forgo the remand hearing; the hearing is required regardless of counsel’s decision | Court: Defendant may not be deprived of the mandatory remand hearing by counsel electing not to proceed; hearing is required |
| Whether prior remand and perfunctory reaffirmation of earlier ruling satisfies Janes/Rule 604(d) strict-compliance remedy | State: Shirley suggests limited value in repeated remands where defendant had adequate opportunity earlier | Fricks: no adequate remand hearing occurred here; perfunctory reiteration insufficient | Court: Shirley inapposite because it presupposes an initial remand hearing; a mere charade is insufficient and requires another remand |
| Remedy when Rule 604(d) certification was defective and no new hearing held on remand | State: remand may be limited if defendant agreed to decline rehearing | Fricks: full remand with new hearing required | Court: Vacate denial of motion to reduce sentence and remand for a new hearing in strict compliance with Rule 604(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (establishes strict-compliance remedy under Rule 604(d) and remand for new motion and hearing)
- People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (clarifies remand: certificate and opportunity to file new motion are optional, but a new hearing is required)
- People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (limits repeated remands where an adequate remand hearing already occurred)
- People v. Oliver, 276 Ill. App. 3d 929 (interpreted Janes to require filing a new motion and a new hearing on remand)