People v. Jordan
992 N.E.2d 585
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Jimmie R. Jordan was convicted of aggravated DUI and aggravated driving with license revoked; sentenced to concurrent 30-month probation terms in case 10-CF-2588.
- State later sought probation revocation; in case 11-CF-1857, Jordan admitted probation violation and pled guilty to aggravated battery in a separate proceeding.
- At consolidated hearings, trial court thereafer resentenced Jordan to prison terms: 36 months for traffic offenses and 42 months for aggravated battery, all concurrent.
- Rule 605(b) admonishments were given; counsel filed separate postjudgment motions to reconsider in both cases.
- In case 11-CF-1857, counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate claiming consultation, file review, and amendments for adequate presentation, but it did not clearly state consultation about the plea.
- Jordan appealed challenging the postjudgment rulings on the basis that counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate failed strict compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 604(d) certificate satisfied strict compliance. | Jordan argues the certificate failed to show consultation about the plea. | State argues the certificate complied by addressing the sentence and plea together. | No; certificate deficient; strict compliance required. |
| Whether “or” in Rule 604(d) should be read as “and” when only sentencing issues are pursued. | Jordan contends “or” means provide for both sentence and plea issues. | State relies on traditional reading; treating as either/or. | Ambiguity resolved in favor of requiring consultation about both sentence and plea. |
| What remedy is proper for Rule 604(d) violation in this context. | Violation requires vacating orders and remanding for new certificate and motion. | Remand with directions to file a valid Rule 604(d) certificate and potentially new motion to withdraw plea and/or reconsider sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dryden, 2012 IL App (2d) 110646 (2d Cir. 2012) (defective Rule 604(d) certificate when only plea or sentence addressed)
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994) (strict compliance required)
- People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (2011) (remand for new Rule 604(d) certificate and motion)
- People v. Heinz, 259 Ill. App. 3d 709 (1994) (purpose of strict compliance to safeguard direct appeal rights)
- People v. Davis, 255 Ill. App. 3d 647 (1994) (waiver/forfeiture considerations in Rule 604(d))
- People v. Phipps, 238 Ill. 2d 54 (2010) (forfeiture vs. waiver distinctions in Rule 604(d))
- People v. Mineau, 2012 IL App (2d) 110666 (2d Cir. 2012) (addressing ambiguity of Rule 604(d) language)
- Friedman v. Thorson, 303 Ill. App. 3d 131 (1999) (interpretation of supreme court rules)
- In re Vincent Y., 337 Ill. App. 3d 752 (2003) (potential impact of Rule 604(d) on proceedings)