People v. Peltz
2019 IL App (2d) 170465
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2019Background
- Timothy J. Peltz was indicted on multiple counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse; he pleaded guilty to four predatory-criminal-sexual-assault counts and the remaining counts were nol-prossed.
- The stipulated factual basis described repeated sexual abuse of his adoptive daughter A.P. beginning when she was very young and spanning into her teens; statements, jail calls, and text messages were admitted at sentencing.
- At sentencing the trial court called the conduct "wrong by every measure," found aggravating features (including that Peltz was her father), and imposed four consecutive 8½-year prison terms.
- Peltz filed a motion to reconsider his sentence (challenging excessiveness and mitigation), which the trial court denied; he then appealed.
- On appeal Peltz argued (1) his counsel’s Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certificate was defective and required remand; alternatively (2) the trial court relied improperly on its own opinion in sentencing; and (3) the court improperly imposed multiple DNA-analysis and STD-testing fees.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, held the Rule 604(d) certificate was sufficient, rejected the sentencing-adequacy challenge, but remanded for the limited purpose of allowing Peltz to raise the fee issues in the trial court under Rule 472.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate strictly complied with the rule | State: the certificate substantially complied and cured the Rule’s purpose; no remand needed | Peltz: certificate failed to show counsel consulted about errors in the plea entry (it only referenced consultation about sentencing) | Court: certificate sufficiently complied because it stated defendant did not desire to withdraw plea and counsel examined the file; no remand for new 604(d) proceedings |
| Whether the trial court relied on its own opinion (an improper factor) in sentencing | State: sentencing remarks reflected reaction to crime facts and were supported by record | Peltz: court’s highly subjective/pejorative remarks showed it relied on its own feelings rather than proper factors | Court: comments were within permissible sentencing discretion, supported by the facts and not the kind of unlawful personal-policy reasoning that requires resentencing |
| Whether multiple DNA-analysis and STD-testing fees were improperly imposed | State: fee challenge forfeited by failure to raise below; but Rule 472 permits correction | Peltz: fees were improperly imposed and should be vacated | Court: because appeal was pending on March 1, 2019, remanded under Rule 472 to permit filing of a postjudgment motion to correct fee errors; appellate review stayed pending that motion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 (interpreting Rule 604(d) consultation requirement to cover both plea and sentence)
- People v. Easton, 2018 IL 122187 (reaffirming Tousignant on Rule 604(d) scope)
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (mandating remand for strict Rule 604(d) compliance when certificate defective)
- People v. Wyatt, 305 Ill. App. 3d 291 (discussing substantial-compliance vs. verbatim certificate language)
- People v. Henry, 254 Ill. App. 3d 899 (finding sentencing court relied on its own opinion and remanding)
- People v. Bolyard, 61 Ill. 2d 583 (cautioning against courts applying personal policies in sentencing)