People v. McPherson
2017 IL App (2d) 150538
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Darius McPherson was charged with direct criminal contempt for refusing to testify (despite use immunity and a court order) in his brother’s murder trial; the State sought classification as a major contempt and a sentence potentially exceeding six months.
- While a separate drug case was pending, defendant pled guilty to the drug charge and entered an open guilty plea/admission to the contempt petition; the court took a factual basis and scheduled sentencing.
- At sentencing the court considered a presentence investigation report and other factors, found the contempt sentence must run consecutively to the drug sentence (because defendant was in jail on the drug charge when he committed the contempt), and imposed six years for contempt and 3.5 years for the drug conviction.
- Defendant filed a motion to reconsider only the contempt sentence; defense counsel did not file the certificate required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d).
- The trial court denied the motion; defendant appealed, arguing Rule 604(d) applied and counsel’s failure to file the certificate required vacatur/remand; the State argued direct criminal contempt is sui generis so Rule 604(d) does not apply and the sentence was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ill. S. Ct. Rule 604(d) applies to a guilty plea in a direct criminal contempt proceeding | Rule 604(d) does not apply because direct criminal contempt is sui generis and ordinary criminal procedural rules need not apply | Rule 604(d) applies because defendant was criminally charged, arraigned, admonished under Rule 402, pled guilty with a factual basis, and was sentenced following a presentence report—i.e., the proceeding had the trappings of a typical criminal prosecution | Rule 604(d) applies given the formal criminal-prosecution procedures used in this case |
| Remedy when counsel fails to file the Rule 604(d) certificate after a motion to reconsider sentence | (Not separately argued) The State contended Rule 604(d) not applicable so no remedy needed | Vacatur and remand for filing a valid Rule 604(d) certificate, opportunity to file a new motion, and a new motion hearing | Vacate denial of motion and remand for certificate, new motion, and new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tufte, 165 Ill. 2d 66 (1995) (Rule 604(d) applies to guilty pleas in criminal charges)
- People v. Simac, 161 Ill. 2d 297 (1994) (direct criminal contempt is normally found and punished summarily)
- People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (2011) (remedy for failure to comply with Rule 604(d) is vacatur and remand for compliance)