People v. Herrera, 970 N.E.2d 1219

Herrera was nonnegotiably convicted by guilty plea on two counts of aggravated DUI; he received a 10-year sentence.
Kliment, appointed as public defender, filed a Rule 604(d) certificate and a motion to reconsider after sentencing.
Kliment became a judge after filing the certificate but before the motion was heard; Yetter substituted as counsel.
Yetter filed a new 604(d) certificate alleging consultation with Herrera and review of transcripts, and proceeded to argue the motion.
The trial court denied the motion; Herrera appealed, challenging both the 604(d) certificates and the use of the victims’ deaths as aggravation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 604(d) strict compliance was met	State contends Kliment’s certificate sufficed; Yetter’s deficient but not required	Herrera argues both certificates fail strict compliance, warrant remand	Remand for new postplea proceedings
Whether the certificates complied so as to permit the postplea proceeding	State asserts proper compliance via Kliment’s certificate	Herrera argues lack of proper compliance from both attorneys	Remand required; cannot rely on insufficient certificates
Whether the trial court erred in considering deaths as aggravation	Death, being inherent to offense, permissible aggravation	Death should not be aggravating factor beyond offense elements	Issue not reached due to remand

People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (strict compliance required under Rule 604(d))
People v. Ritchie, 258 Ill. App. 3d 164 (1994) (certificate adequacy tied to attorney's representation at postplea)
People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2008) (certificate must reflect actual consultation and actions)
People v. Neal, 403 Ill. App. 3d 757 (2010) (reliance on certificate without showing compliance not allowed)
People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606 (2005) (strict compliance review of Rule 604(d) certificates)
People v. Grice, 371 Ill. App. 3d 813 (2007) (urges vigilant verification of Rule 604(d) certificates)