People v. Martell, 46 N.E.3d 253

Defendant Gordon R. Martell entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawful restraint and received the agreed 12‑month prison term on September 29, 2014.
He filed a motion to withdraw his plea on October 8, 2014, claiming he was not given time to make a fully informed decision.
Defense counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate stating counsel had consulted with defendant about "contentions of error in the plea of guilty," examined the file, and amended the motion as needed.
The trial court denied the motion on October 29, 2014; defendant timely appealed arguing the Rule 604(d) certificate was defective for failing to state counsel consulted about the sentence.
The appellate court found the certificate deficient under Rule 604(d) as construed in People v. Tousignant and vacated the denial of the postjudgment motion, remanding for a proper certificate, opportunity to file a new motion, and a new hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate must show consultation about both the plea and the sentence when plea is fully negotiated	Certificate need not state consultation about sentence because sentence was predetermined by plea bargain and the court exercised no sentencing discretion	Certificate is defective because Rule 604(d) (as construed in Tousignant) requires counsel to consult about both the entry of the plea and the sentence	The certificate was deficient; counsel must consult about both plea and sentence even for fully negotiated pleas and strict compliance is required

People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (establishing strict compliance remedy for Rule 604(d) noncompliance)
People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (construing Rule 604(d) to require consultation about both sentence and entry of plea)
People v. Neal, 403 Ill. App. 3d 757 (de novo review of Rule 604(d) compliance)
People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (remedy and procedure on remand following Rule 604(d) deficiency)