2020 IL App (2d) 180289
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Jasmine Winston pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery (allegedly throwing a bottle and books at a pregnant woman) and received a two-year conditional discharge.
- She moved to withdraw her negotiated guilty plea, claiming the plea was involuntary (pressure to secure release, unaware of collateral consequences) and that there was doubt as to her guilt.
- Counsel filed postplea motions and multiple Rule 604(d) certificates; appellate court remanded twice for defective compliance with Rule 604(d).
- At the subsequent hearing Winston testified she threw a bottle only after being provoked, did not know the victim was pregnant, and felt pressured to plead; counsel sought to admit written witness statements but the trial court excluded them for lack of foundation.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, concluding Winston offered no objective evidence to create reasonable doubt; Winston appealed again.
- The appellate court vacated the denial and remanded for further proceedings, concluding counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate was refuted by the record and raising concerns about counsel performance and whether a Krankel inquiry is needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) | Certificate was facially valid; remand not required if counsel reasonably decided an amended motion wasn’t needed | Record shows counsel raised a new insufficiency-of-evidence claim at the hearing without amending the motion or submitting required affidavits, refuting the certificate | Certificate was refuted by the record; remand required for strict Rule 604(d) compliance (vacated denial and remanded) |
| Whether trial counsel’s conduct at the postplea hearing raises ineffective-assistance concerns | Any tactical choices (e.g., not calling witnesses) were reasonable; witnesses might be unreliable | Counsel arguably performed deficiently by raising a new claim without affidavits and failing to secure witnesses or admissible evidence | Court identified arguable deficiencies and remanded for further proceedings; did not resolve prejudice but required further inquiry |
| Whether a Krankel inquiry (new counsel for postplea ineffective-assistance claim) was required | Krankel relief is not automatic; court should make a preliminary inquiry before appointing new counsel | Winston’s expressions of dissatisfaction with counsel could trigger a Krankel inquiry | Court declined to decide now but remanded so the trial court can conduct a preliminary Krankel inquiry if warranted |
| Whether the trial court properly denied withdrawal for lack of objective evidence | Trial court reasonably found no objective evidence supporting a reasonable doubt of guilt | Exclusion of written witness statements and counsel’s failure to present witnesses prevented a fair testing of the claim | Merits not decided; procedural defects (Rule 604(d) and hearing inadequacies) require remand for a new motion/certificate and hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (court must strictly enforce Rule 604(d); noncompliance requires remand)
- People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522 (explains scope of Rule 604(d) duties for counsel on remand)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (trial court should conduct preliminary inquiry when defendant alleges posttrial ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (governs ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)