People v. Hagerstorm
56 N.E.3d 1114
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Jason D. Hagerstrom pleaded guilty to seven counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and was told sentences would be "consecutive eligible"; the State advised they would be mandatorily consecutive and each term would be followed by 3 years MSR.
- Trial court sentenced him to seven consecutive 9-year terms, each followed by 3 years MSR.
- Defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider but did not file the Rule 604(d) certificate; the trial court denied the motion.
- On direct appeal this court remanded for de novo postplea proceedings because counsel had failed to file a Rule 604(d) certificate.
- On remand counsel filed a deficient Rule 604(d) certificate (omitted consultation about the plea and did not review plea/sentencing transcripts) and refiled the same motion to reconsider; the trial court again denied relief.
- The State conceded the certificate was noncompliant but argued a second remand was unnecessary under People v. Shirley because multiple remands can be wasteful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s 2014 Rule 604(d) certificate complied with Rule 604(d) | State: Certificate was deficient but remand unnecessary because defendant already had a full postremand opportunity (relying on Shirley) | Hagerstrom: Certificate failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d); requires another remand and de novo postplea proceedings | Certificate was noncompliant and a second remand for de novo postplea proceedings is required |
| Whether Shirley bars successive remands when Rule 604(d) compliance is doubtful | State: Shirley precludes multiple remands where defendant had a full second opportunity | Hagerstrom: Shirley does not bar additional remands when compliance is lacking | Shirley does not create an absolute bar; successive remands may be required when counsel’s compliance is doubtful |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required and failure warrants remand)
- People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (1998) (declined automatic multiple remands where defendant had a full and fair second opportunity)
- People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2008) (where Rule 604(d) compliance is doubtful, fairness of proceedings is in doubt and remand may be required)
- People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (2014) (reading of Rule 604(d) requires counsel to consult about both plea entry and sentence)