People v. Hobbs
42 N.E.3d 471
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Cedric Hobbs pleaded guilty (open plea) to unlawful possession with intent to deliver (Count I); Count II later nol-prossed. Sentence: 15 years imprisonment with 287 days credit.
- Defense counsel filed a postplea motion to withdraw the plea or, alternatively, to reconsider the sentence; Hobbs later limited the motion to reconsider the sentence.
- Counsel filed the trial court's form Rule 604(d) certificate stating he had consulted with Hobbs "to ascertain defendant's contentions of error in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty." The court accepted the certificate and denied the motion.
- Hobbs appealed, arguing counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate did not strictly comply because it used "or" rather than certifying consultation about both plea and sentence. He sought remand for new postplea proceedings.
- The appellate court reviewed Rule 604(d) compliance de novo and analyzed the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tousignant regarding whether "or" in Rule 604(d) should be read as "and."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hobbs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate that says counsel consulted about contentions of error "in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty" satisfies Rule 604(d) | "Or" in the rule may be read as meaning "and" by courts; literal compliance with the rule text is sufficient (no need to rewrite certificate). | The certificate is defective because it does not certify counsel consulted about both plea and sentence; quoting the rule wording creates ambiguity and fails Tousignant's requirement. | The certificate was insufficient. Under Tousignant, the clause must be read to require certification that counsel consulted about contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the guilty plea. Remand for new postplea proceedings and a compliant Rule 604(d) certificate. |
| Whether Mineau permits literal "or" wording to suffice after Tousignant | Literal compliance should be acceptable; courts can infer consultation about both issues from the motion or context. | Literal "or" wording is inadequate under Tousignant and undermines Rule 604(d)'s purpose; the certificate itself must show consultation on both plea and sentence. | Mineau’s approach rejected as inconsistent with Tousignant. The certificate itself must affirm consultation about both plea and sentence; courts should not rely on inferences from the motion or other record. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tousignant, 5 N.E.3d 176 (Ill. 2014) (holding that to effectuate Rule 604(d) the word "or" must be read as "and" so counsel must certify consultation about plea and sentence)
- People v. Mineau, 19 N.E.3d 633 (Ill. App. 2014) (2d Dist.) (held literal "or" wording complied with the rule; later distinguished/rejected here)
- People v. Janes, 630 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. 1994) (discussing Rule 604(d) waiver consequences and purpose of postplea procedures)
- People v. Mason, 37 N.E.3d 927 (Ill. App. 2015) (4th Dist.) (interpreting Tousignant to require counsel certify consultation about both plea and sentence)