People v. Gonzalez, 411 Ill. Dec. 515

Defendant Juan M. Gonzalez entered a blind guilty plea to two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child based on conduct involving a 4‑year‑old victim.
He was sentenced to consecutive 20‑year terms and filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied; this court previously remanded for strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d).
On remand defense counsel filed a new motion to reconsider and a Rule 604(d) certificate stating counsel reviewed the plea transcript and consulted with defendant.
Between the filing and the hearing, Rule 604(d) was amended (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) to require certification that counsel examined both the plea and the sentencing transcripts and that consultation could be by phone, mail, electronic means, or in person.
The certificate filed did not state that counsel reviewed the sentencing hearing transcript. The trial court denied the motion; defendant appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended Rule 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of the amendment	Rule 604(d) need not be applied retroactively (State argued remand unnecessary where defendant had already been heard)	The amended rule is procedural and should apply immediately to pending cases to afford greater protections	The court held the amendment is procedural, may be applied retroactively, and should be applied retroactively
Whether counsel strictly complied with Rule 604(d) and whether remand is required for postplea proceedings	The State argued remand was unnecessary because defendant already had a full and fair opportunity to present his postplea motion (relying on Shirley)	Counsel’s certificate complied with the earlier rule but did not certify review of the sentencing transcript as required by the amended Rule 604(d); defendant sought remand for strict compliance	The court held counsel failed strict compliance (did not certify review of sentencing transcript) and remanded for new postplea proceedings; refused to apply Shirley to deny remand

Allegis Realty Investors v. Novak, 223 Ill. 2d 318 (procedural amendments may be applied retroactively)
People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Petroleum Corp., 363 Ill. App. 3d 613 (retroactivity framework for supreme court rules)
Schweickert v. AG Servs. of Am., Inc., 355 Ill. App. 3d 439 (distinguishing procedural vs. substantive changes)
People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (Rule 604(d) requires strict compliance; remedy is remand for new postplea proceedings)
People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (remand not required when defendant already received full and fair hearing)
People v. Steinmetz, 110 Ill. App. 3d 439 (policy behind Rule 604(d) requiring counsel to review records and not rely on memory)