NO. 4-06-0096 Filed 3/6/07
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Edgar County
RICHARD DANIEL GRICE, ) No. 04CF169
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) H. Dean Andrews,
) Judge Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of
the court:
In September 2004, defendant, Richard Daniel Grice,
pleaded guilty to criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(2)
(West 2004)), and in November 2004, the trial court sentenced him
to 12 years in prison. Later in November 2004, defendant filed a
motion to reconsider his sentence. At a January 2006 hearing on
that motion, defense counsel filed a certificate purportedly in
compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 2d R.
604(d)). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied
defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence.
Defendant appeals, arguing that because defense coun-
sel's certificate failed to comply with the requirements of Rule
604(d), this case should be remanded to the trial court for (1)
the filing of a new postplea motion, (2) a new hearing on defen-
dant's postplea motion, and (3) strict compliance with Rule
604(d)'s requirements. We agree and reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
In July 2004, the State charged defendant with two
counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS
5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2004)). At a September 2004 hearing, the
information was amended to charge one count of criminal sexual
assault (720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(2) (West 2004)), and the State moved
to dismiss the charge of predatory criminal sexual assault of a
child (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2004)). Defendant then
entered an open plea of guilty to criminal sexual assault, and
the court granted the State's motion to dismiss the other charge.
Following a November 2004 sentencing hearing, the trial
court sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison. Later in
November 2004, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sen-
tence.
At the January 2006 hearing on defendant's motion to
reconsider sentence, defense counsel filed a certificate purport-
edly in compliance with Rule 604(d). The certificate provided,
in pertinent part, as follows:
"1. I was appointed to represent
[d]efendant on this charge and represented
him through the guilty[-]plea and sentencing
phase.
- 2 -
2. I have reviewed the transcript of
proceedings of the sentencing hearing, as
well as the [c]ourt file.
3. I have communicated with [d]efendant
in writing to ascertain in more detail his
grounds for errors.
4. I drafted the original motion after
consulting with defendant following the sen-
tencing hearing and I have made any amend-
ments necessary for adequate presentation of
any defects alleged in these proceedings."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
denied defendant's motion to reconsider sentence.
This appeal followed.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULE 604(d)
Defendant argues that because defense counsel's certif-
icate did not comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), this
case should be remanded to the trial court for (1) the filing of
a new postplea motion, (2) a new hearing on defendant's postplea
motion, and (3) strict compliance with Rule 604(d)'s require-
ments. We agree.
Rule 604(d), which addresses procedures to be followed
when a defendant (after pleading guilty) files either a motion to
reconsider the sentence or to withdraw the guilty plea, provides,
- 3 -
in pertinent part, as follows:
"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
defendant's contentions of error in the sen-
tence 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." 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).
The question of whether defense counsel complied with
Rule 604(d) is subject to de novo review. People v. Johnson, 363
Ill. App. 3d 356, 359, 843 N.E.2d 434, 437 (2006). When ascer-
taining whether compliance has occurred, we are mindful that
supreme court rules "are not suggestions; rather, they have the
force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be
obeyed and enforced as written." People v. Campbell, No. 101263,
slip op. at 5 (November 30, 2006), ___ Ill. 2d ___, ___, ___
N.E.2d ___, ___ (modified on denial of rehearing January 22,
2007). The failure to strictly comply with each of the provi-
sions of Rule 604(d) requires "remand to the circuit court for
the filing of a new motion to withdraw guilty plea or to recon-
- 4 -
sider sentence and a new hearing on the motion." People v.
Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 33, 630 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1994).
Here, defense counsel's purported Rule 604(d) certifi-
cate failed to state that counsel had reviewed the guilty-plea
proceedings. Accordingly, that certificate failed to comply with
one of Rule 604(d)'s requirements, and we conclude that reversal
and remand are required.
In so concluding, we recognize that in People v.
Starks, 344 Ill. App. 3d 766, 769, 800 N.E.2d 1239, 1242 (2003),
this court held that where the record demonstrates that the
purpose of Rule 604(d) has been satisfied, remand is not re-
quired. However, in light of the Second District's decision in
People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606, 823 N.E.2d 1131 (2005),
and this court's decision in People v. Pressey, 357 Ill. App. 3d
887, 829 N.E.2d 426 (2005), we decline to follow Starks.
In Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 608, 823 N.E.2d at
1133, defense counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate failed to
strictly comply with that rule in that it failed to state that
counsel had made amendments to the motion that were necessary for
the adequate presentation of any defects in proceedings. In
remanding for compliance with Rule 604(d), the Second District
noted that strict compliance with the rule eliminates unnecessary
appeals and any controversy that might arise regarding whether
the record shows substantial compliance. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App.
- 5 -
3d at 610, 823 N.E.2d at 1134. The Second District further
explained as follows:
"[A] waste of judicial resources occurs when,
as a result of an attorney's deficient cer-
tificate, an appellate court must scour
through the record to determine whether that
attorney actually complied with Rule 604(d),
even though strict compliance with that
rule's certification requirements would pre-
vent such waste." Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d
at 609, 823 N.E.2d at 1134.
In Pressey, defense counsel's certificate failed to state that
counsel had examined the record of the guilty-plea proceedings.
Citing the supreme court's decision in Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33,
630 N.E.2d at 792, this court held that strict compliance with
Rule 604(d) was required and remanded for further proceedings.
Pressey, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 890-91, 829 N.E.2d at 430. We agree
with the Second District's analysis in Dismuke and adhere to our
holding in Pressey.
Accordingly, we explicitly decline the State's invita-
tion to examine the record to determine whether defense counsel's
conduct satisfied Rule 604(d)'s requirements. By promulgating
Rule 604(d), the Supreme Court of Illinois has already determined
the required content of the certificate, and it is the duty of
- 6 -
this court--and the trial courts--to ensure that this supreme
court mandate is followed. Thus, in this case and henceforth,
the certificate itself is all that this court will consider to
determine compliance with Rule 604(d).
Although the responsibility for drafting a proper Rule
604(d) certificate lies initially with defense counsel, trial
courts can, and should, play an important role in preventing the
waste of judicial resources that occurs when we must address on
appeal the validity of a Rule 604(d) certificate. Trial courts
possess the power--and the duty--to examine any Rule 604(d)
certificate when filed to determine whether it complies with that
rule. Trial courts should reject those certificates that do not
comply, and when doing so, instruct counsel to file another
certificate in accordance with all of the requirements of Rule
604(d). If trial courts follow these suggestions, the terrible
waste of judicial resources that now occurs, as here, due to
defective Rule 604(d) certificates should cease.
Because Rule 604(d) is lengthy, we set forth the
following key aspects of that rule with which defense counsel
must comply. We do so to facilitate a trial court's scrutiny of
any purported Rule 604(d) certificate it receives. Such a
certificate must contain each of the following:
(1) A statement that the attorney has
consulted with the defendant, either by mail
- 7 -
or in person, to ascertain defendant's con-
tentions of error in the sentence or the
entry of the plea of guilty.
(2) A statement that the attorney has
examined the trial court file.
(3) A statement that the attorney has
examined the report of proceedings of the
plea of guilty.
(4) A statement that the attorney has
made any amendments to the motion necessary
for adequate presentation of any defects in
those proceedings.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court's
judgment and remand for (1) the filing of a new postplea motion
(if defendant so wishes), (2) a new hearing on defendant's
postplea motion, and (3) strict compliance with Rule 604(d)'s
requirements.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
APPLETON and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.
- 8 -