2021 IL App (4th) 180497-U
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In October 2017 Jeffrey L. Jones Sr. pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated DUI and was sentenced to 15 years as a Class X offender based on the State’s allegation of six prior DUI convictions.
- The charging information listed six prior DUI case numbers from Allen County, Indiana; one of those priors later appeared to be a different Jeffrey L. Jones.
- Jones filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea and then amended motions claiming his plea was not knowing/voluntary, trial counsel (Farrington) did not act in his best interests, he felt uncomfortable with counsel, counsel failed to advise him of appellate rights, and a prior conviction listed was not his.
- Postplea counsel filed Rule 604(d) certificates but did not attach an affidavit supporting facts dehors the record; Jones argued this noncompliance required remand.
- At a full evidentiary hearing Farrington testified she performed a cursory review of priors; Jones testified he accepted the plea voluntarily but felt pressured; the State conceded one prior was mistakenly listed but maintained Jones still had sufficient priors to trigger Class X sentencing.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw; the appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) strict compliance with the affidavit prong of Rule 604(d) was unnecessary because the facts were on the record or presented at the hearing, and (2) Jones failed to prove a manifest injustice from pleading under any alleged misapprehension about priors.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jones's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Rule 604(d) filing required strict compliance with the affidavit requirement and, if not met, whether remand is required | A remand is unnecessary because the facts supporting Jones’s claims were either of record or were fully presented at the postplea evidentiary hearing | Counsel failed to attach an affidavit supporting facts dehors the record, so strict compliance was required and remand is necessary | No remand; strict affidavit requirement excused where facts were of record or fully developed at a meaningful hearing; postplea counsel substantially complied with Rule 604(d) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw plea where a mistakenly listed prior might have affected Class X eligibility | Even with the mistakenly listed prior, the record (including an abstract) showed sufficient priors to trigger Class X sentencing; Jones did not challenge the abstract at the hearing | Jones pleaded guilty under a misapprehension about the number/validity of priors and thus was entitled to withdraw his plea | No abuse of discretion; Jones failed to rebut the abstract or show manifest injustice, so denial of withdrawal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Linder, 186 Ill. 2d 67 (1999) (Rule 604(d) certification assures trial court review of postplea claims)
- People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (1998) (remand for Rule 604(d) noncompliance is not required where full and fair hearing already occurred)
- People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93 (1988) (purpose of Rule 604(d) is to allow the trial judge to hear allegations of improprieties dehors the record)
- People v. Hall, 198 Ill. 2d 173 (2001) (standard of review for compliance with supreme court rules is de novo)
- People v. Meadows, 371 Ill. App. 3d 259 (2007) (defendant must challenge accuracy of a submitted abstract or its contents are deemed accurate)
- People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2008) (substantive compliance with Rule 604(d) ensures a full and fair postplea hearing)
- People v. Dickerson, 212 Ill. App. 3d 168 (1991) (filing of Rule 604(d) certificate is condition precedent to hearing on motion to withdraw plea)
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (strict compliance with Rule 604(d) generally required)
- People v. Keele, 210 Ill. App. 3d 898 (1991) (a perfunctory hearing does not satisfy Rule 604(d) goals)