People v. Walker
2020 IL App (3d) 180284-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Walker pleaded guilty (pursuant to a plea deal) to Class 4 criminal trespass to a residence and a misdemeanor battery; other charges were dismissed; sentence: 66 months + 127 days.
- Two days after sentencing Walker filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective plea counsel and innocence.
- The trial court appointed postplea counsel, who reviewed the record and declined to adopt Walker’s pro se motion; after some conferring counsel said he would file a motion to reconsider sentence and later filed a Rule 604(d) certificate.
- This court previously remanded for strict compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d), directing new postplea proceedings; the trial court thereafter filed a facially compliant certificate but no accompanying postplea motion, and Walker ultimately argued pro se and lost.
- The appellate court held it had jurisdiction and remanded again because the record impeached the Rule 604(d) certificate: counsel did not file a postplea motion or demonstrate actual compliance. The court ordered a new postplea motion with a compliant Rule 604(d) certificate and a de novo hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Is this appeal effective given a purported pending motion to reconsider? | The State: appeal should be dismissed because a motion to reconsider sentence remains pending in circuit court. | Walker: no valid postjudgment motion is pending—prior proceedings were nullities and no valid motion was filed after remand. | Court: appellate jurisdiction exists; no postjudgment motion is pending because earlier proceedings were void and no new motion was filed after mandate. |
| Rule 604(d) compliance / right to counsel on postplea motion | The State implied compliance via counsel’s filed certificate. | Walker: counsel failed to perform Rule 604(d) duties (consult, review transcripts, amend motion) and effectively left him to proceed pro se. | Court: remand for strict compliance—postplea counsel must file a proper postplea motion with an accurate Rule 604(d) certificate and there must be a de novo hearing; counsel must attempt amendments or formally withdraw before pro se proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Porter, 258 Ill. App. 3d 200 (1994) (remand requires parties and court to "start anew"; prior defective postplea proceedings are a nullity)
- People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2008) (Rule 604(d) certificate must reflect actual compliance; remand when record impeaches certificate)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (counsel need not press frivolous claims)
- People v. Greer, 212 Ill. 2d 192 (2004) (appointed counsel not required to advance frivolous or spurious claims)
- People v. Williams, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1164 (2001) (appeal must be dismissed if a postjudgment motion remains pending)