People v. Mason
37 N.E.3d 927
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant (Demetrious J. Mason) pled guilty to criminal sexual abuse pursuant to a negotiated plea; court sentenced him to 30 months’ probation and dismissed a related criminal sexual assault charge.
- Defendant timely filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea (arguing a speedy-trial violation); defense counsel filed a motion adopting that argument and submitted a Rule 604(d) certificate.
- At the postplea hearing the trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea; defendant timely appealed.
- The Rule 604(d) certificate recited verbatim that counsel “consulted with the defendant in person to ascertain his contentions of error in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty.”
- The appellate issue: whether that verbatim certificate complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Tousignant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate that verbatimly uses “or” complied with Rule 604(d) under Tousignant | The State: the certificate was not deficient; or, even if imperfect, remand not required | Mason: certificate failed to show counsel consulted about both plea and sentence contentions, so remand for new postplea proceedings required | The court held the verbatim recital using “or” did not precisely show compliance with Rule 604(d) as interpreted in Tousignant and reversed and remanded for proceedings complying with Tousignant |
| Whether a literal recital of Rule 604(d) alone can satisfy the certificate requirement | The State cited decisions allowing literal recital to suffice (Mineau) and argued no prejudice shown | Mason argued a literal recital fails to demonstrate what counsel actually did and is therefore noncompliant | The court agreed with the Third District approach (Scarbrough): a literal recital is not sufficiently precise under Tousignant; remand ordered for strict compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tousignant, 5 N.E.3d 176 (Ill. 2014) (interpreting Rule 604(d) to require counsel to certify consultation about both the plea and the sentence)
- People v. Grice, 867 N.E.2d 1143 (Ill. App. 2007) (standard of review and Rule 604(d) compliance reviewed de novo)
- People v. Mineau, 19 N.E.3d 633 (Ill. App. 2014) (holding a verbatim recital of Rule 604(d) may be sufficient)
- People v. Herrera, 970 N.E.2d 1219 (Ill. App. 2012) (noting using a rule’s language verbatim is generally better practice)