No. 2--95--1075
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
_________________________________________________________________
In re R.C.K., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
a Minor ) of Lake County.
)
) No. 95--J--256
)
(The People of the State of ) Honorable
Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, ) David M. Hall,
v. R.C.K., Respondent-Appellant).) Judge, Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DOYLE delivered the opinion of the court:
Respondent, R.C.K., was alleged to be a delinquent minor in a
petition for adjudication of wardship that charged the offense of
armed robbery (720 ILCS 5/18--2(a) (West 1994)). The case was
retained in the juvenile court, and the minor entered an admission
to the petition. On June 30, 1995, the court adjudicated the minor
a ward of the court and committed him to the Department of
Corrections, Juvenile Division. Subsequently, respondent's
attorney filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which the court
denied on August 17, 1995, following a hearing. On that same date,
a notice of appeal was filed. On September 1, 1995, an amended
notice of appeal was filed.
On June 26, 1996, respondent filed a motion to summarily
reverse the judgment and to remand the cause for compliance with
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) because
of his counsel's failure to file a certificate stating that, prior
to the hearing on respondent's motion to reconsider sentence,
counsel had performed the functions to which he must certify. Rule
604(d) provides, in relevant part:
"No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of
guilty shall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days
of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial
court a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the
sentence is being challenged, or, if the plea is being
challenged, a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and
vacate the judgment. *** The defendant's attorney shall
file with the trial court a certificate stating that the
attorney has consulted with the defendant either by mail or
in person to ascertain his contentions of error in the
sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty, has examined
the trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea
of guilty, and has made any amendments to the motion
necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those
proceedings." 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).
In People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994), the supreme court
held that failure to comply strictly with each of the provisions of
Rule 604(d) mandates a remand to the circuit court for the filing
of a new motion to withdraw the guilty plea or to reconsider the
sentence and a new hearing on the motion. 158 Ill. 2d at 33.
Respondent contends that Rule 604(d) applies to juvenile cases as
well as criminal cases and that, because counsel for respondent
failed to file a certificate in compliance with Rule 604(d), the
judgment must be summarily reversed, and the cause remanded to the
circuit court. The State maintains that the certification
requirement of Rule 604(d) is not applicable to juvenile cases. We
do not agree.
Supreme Court Rule 660(a) provides that appeals in juvenile
delinquency cases shall be governed by the rules applicable to
criminal cases. 134 Ill. 2d R. 660(a); In re A.W., 185 Ill. App.
3d 473, 474 (1989). By the use of the term "rules," Rule 660(a)
incorporates the other supreme court rules into delinquency
appeals. See In re W.C., 167 Ill. 2d 307, 324 (1995).
In particular, Rule 604(d) has been found to apply in
delinquency appeals. In In re F.D., 89 Ill. App. 3d 223 (1980),
this court determined that Supreme Court Rule 604(d) is applicable
to appeals by minors who have been adjudicated delinquent following
an admission. 89 Ill. App. 3d at 228. More recently, our supreme
court in W.C. cited Rule 604(d) as an example of a supreme court
rule applicable to criminal cases that also governs delinquency
appeals. W.C., 167 Ill. 2d at 322. While both of the
aforementioned cases in referring to the applicability of Rule
604(d) to delinquency appeals mention only that portion of the rule
concerning the withdrawal of guilty pleas and while no authority
for applying the certificate requirement of the rule to
delinquency appeals has been found, we cannot accept the State's
position that only part of Rule 604(d) applies to juvenile
delinquency proceedings. As respondent points out, Supreme Court
Rule 660(a), in incorporating the other supreme court rules into
delinquency appeals, makes no provision for the bifurcation of the
rules. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 660(a).
The State contends that the holding in W.C. casts doubt on the
applicability of the requirements of Rule 604(d) in juvenile cases.
The question in W.C. was whether a post-trial motion was required
to preserve a claimed error in delinquency proceedings. The court
held that a written post-trial motion was not required in
delinquency proceedings because Supreme Court Rule 660(a)
incorporates the other supreme court rules in delinquency appeals,
but not statutes such as section 116--1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/116--1 (West 1994)) requiring a
written post-trial motion in criminal cases. The court commented,
"While arguably a Rule 604(d) motion might be viewed as a 'post-
trial' motion because it follows trial, we do not decide on these
facts whether such a motion is required to take a delinquency
appeal." W.C., 167 Ill. 2d at 324. The court pointed out that
respondent entered no admission such that the requirement of a Rule
604(d) motion "might come into play." Also, there was no challenge
to respondent's sentence. Accordingly, based on the issue and the
facts presented in W.C., we are not persuaded to change the view we
expressed in F.D. that Rule 604(d) applies to delinquency appeals.
We conclude that Supreme Court Rule 604(d), in its entirety,
is applicable to delinquency appeals.
We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the circuit court of
Lake County and remand the cause for compliance with Rule 604(d).
Reversed and remanded.
McLAREN, P.J., and BOWMAN, J., concur.