People v. Lindsay
239 Ill. 2d 522
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Lindsay pleaded guilty to delivering a controlled substance and was sentenced to 14 years.
- Defense movant filed a motion to reconsider but did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate of compliance.
- Circuit court denied the motion; appellate court reversed and remanded for Rule 604(d) compliance.
- On remand, defense filed a Rule 604(d) certificate but stood on the original motion instead of filing a new motion.
- Appellate court again reversed/remanded, creating a conflict between Oliver and Kerkering over remand procedure.
- Illinois Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a new motion is required on remand for Rule 604(d) compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand for Rule 604(d) compliance requires a new motion? | Lindsay argues Janes mandates a new motion. | Lindsay's position; Kerkering rejects mandatory new motion. | No mandatory new motion on remand; possibility to file if necessary. |
| Interpretation of Janes, Oliver, and Kerkering | Oliver mandated new motion after remand. | Kerkering adopts permissive reading allowing no automatic new motion. | Kerkering is the better reading; remand may include a new motion if necessary. |
| Permissive remand language governs whether new motion is required | Janes language supports filing a new motion on remand. | Remand language permits filing a new motion at defendant's option. | Remand is permissive; filing of a new motion is not mandatory. |
| Effect of remand on Rule 604(d) compliance process | Remand for certificate plus new motion and hearing is required in some lines of cases. | Remand can include only certificate and hearing if no amendment is needed. | Remand procedures are flexible to permit certificate, new motion if necessary, and a new hearing. |
| Application to Lindsay case | Certificate-on-remand suffices; no new motion required if not necessary. | A new motion may still be required depending on defects. | Remand accomplished all Rule 604(d) goals; no further motion needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill.2d 27 (1994) (remand for Rule 604(d) compliance; permissive language about filing new motion)
- People v. Oliver, 276 Ill.App.3d 929 (1995) (remand for 604(d) compliance; new motion not necessarily filed)
- People v. Kerkering, 283 Ill.App.3d 867 (1996) (reading Janes to allow remand unless necessary to file new motion; permissive approach)
- People v. Hayes, 195 Ill.App.3d 957 (1990) (predecessor language cited on remand for defining remedy)