People v. Mineau
2014 IL App (2d) 110666-B
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Martinez Mineau was indicted for burglary and unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle; he pled guilty to unlawful possession in exchange for dismissal of the burglary count.
- He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with credit for pretrial custody and later moved to withdraw the plea or, alternatively, to reconsider the sentence.
- Assistant Public Defender Erin Hannigan filed the amended postplea motion and a Rule 604(d) certificate; David Doll (another public defender) participated at the postplea hearing (questioning the defendant and arguing) but did not file a separate Rule 604(d) certificate.
- The trial court denied Mineau’s postplea motion; Mineau appealed arguing (1) Doll’s failure to file a Rule 604(d) certificate required remand and (2) Hannigan’s certificate was defective for using "and/or" and "or."
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding (a) where the attorney who filed the Rule 604(d) certificate continued to represent the defendant and attended the hearing, a second certificate by cocounsel was not required; and (b) Hannigan’s certificate complied with Rule 604(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Mineau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each attorney who appears at a postplea hearing must file a separate Rule 604(d) certificate | A single compliant certificate by defense counsel who remains counsel of record suffices when that counsel filed the certificate and continued to represent the defendant | Because Doll questioned the defendant and argued at the hearing but did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate, remand is required for a new postplea hearing | Held: Not required here — Hannigan remained counsel, filed the certificate, appeared at the hearing, and the record reasonably shows consultation; Herrera and Ritchie are distinguishable |
| Whether Hannigan’s Rule 604(d) certificate was defective for using "and/or" and "or" | The certificate’s language was sufficient to show consultation and tracked the rule’s text; literal wording met Rule 604(d) | The use of "and/or" (re: method of consultation) and "or" (re: sentence or plea) rendered the certificate noncompliant, requiring remand | Held: Sufficient — "and/or" as to method is acceptable (at least one approved means used) and the certificate’s phraseology mirrored Rule 604(d); after Tousignant the rule’s "or" is read as requiring consultation about both plea and sentence, but Hannigan’s certificate literally tracked the rule and was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (Ill. 2014) (Rule 604(d) requires counsel to consult with defendant about errors in both plea and sentence)
- People v. Ritchie, 258 Ill. App. 3d 164 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (certificate noncompliant where record did not show counsel who filed certificate continued representation or consulted with successor)
- People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required; failure mandates remand)
- People v. Prather, 379 Ill. App. 3d 763 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (certificate deficiency discussed; specifying the exact method of consultation is not necessary)
- People v. Wyatt, 305 Ill. App. 3d 291 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (certificate need not recite rule language verbatim)