2016 IL App (3d) 140262
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant David Jordan was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder; he pleaded guilty to Count I in a negotiated plea for 50 years’ imprisonment (25 for murder + 25 firearm enhancement). Counts II and III were dismissed.
- The trial court appointed counsel; thereafter defendant filed multiple pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and several premature notices of appeal; counsel moved to strike those notices and was granted leave to file an amended motion to withdraw the plea.
- Postplea counsel filed an amended motion to withdraw the guilty plea and submitted a Rule 604(d) certificate that stated counsel had consulted with defendant to ascertain defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence and had reviewed the file and report of proceedings.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea. Defendant appealed, arguing postplea counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate failed to strictly comply with the rule because it did not certify consultation about contentions of error in the entry of the guilty plea.
- The appellate court considered whether the certificate’s omission (consultation about the plea entry) required remand for new postplea proceedings under Illinois Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postplea counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate complied with the rule by certifying consultation only as to sentencing and not the entry of the plea | The State argued the omission was a harmless oversight and the record shows counsel did consult about the plea, so remand would waste resources | Jordan argued counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) because the certificate did not state consultation about contentions of error in the entry of the guilty plea | The court held strict compliance required; counsel’s certificate was deficient for omitting consultation about the plea entry; reversed and remanded for new postplea proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (supreme court holding that counsel must certify consultation regarding errors in both sentence and the entry of the plea and failure to strictly comply requires remand)
- People v. Montag, 2014 IL App (4th) 120993 (discussed but deemed inconsistent with Tousignant)
- People v. Scarbrough, 2015 IL App (3d) 130426 (considered but narrowed by Tousignant; court explains prejudice argument is not controlling)
- People v. Willis, 2015 IL App (5th) 130020 (refused to look beyond the four corners of a Rule 604(d) certificate; supports strict compliance)