Opinion
NO. 5-12-0117
05-24-2013
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
NOTICE
Decision filed 05/24/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.
No. 10-CF-762
Honorable John Baricevic, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Stewart and Cates concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: Where defense counsel failed to strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d), the circuit court's order denying defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea and motion to reduce sentence is vacated and the cause remanded. ¶ 2 Defendant, James Robinson, appeals the circuit court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion to reduce or reconsider his sentence. He requests that this court reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings because his counsel filed a certificate not in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). The State has filed a confession of error. We find defendant's contention and the State's concession to be well-taken. For the following reasons, we vacate the circuit court's order denying defendant's motions and remand the cause for further proceedings.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to two counts of attempted first-degree murder. He was sentenced to a 24-year term and an 18-year term of imprisonment, to run consecutively, as well as 3 years of mandatory supervised release. ¶ 5 Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea in which he argued that there was no factual basis to support the plea and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel then filed a motion to withdraw defendant's guilty plea and a motion to reduce his sentence. Due to the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in defendant's pro se motion, the court ordered new counsel to be appointed to defendant. Defendant's new counsel did not file an amended motion, but did file a Rule 604(d) certificate, which stated that (1) counsel had spoken with the defendant over the telephone to ascertain the defendant's contentions of error in his plea of guilty and (2) that counsel had reviewed the transcripts of both the plea of guilty and the sentencing proceedings. Subsequently, the court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
¶ 6 ANALYSIS
¶ 7 We review de novo circuit court compliance with supreme court rules. People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606, 608 (2005). Rule 604(d) requires that a defendant's attorney file a certificate with the trial court that certifies that he has (1) consulted with the defendant either by mail or in person to ascertain the defendant's contentions of error in the sentence or in the guilty plea, (2) examined the trial court file and report of the proceedings of the guilty plea, and (3) made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings. Defense counsel must strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d). People v. Dryden, 2012 IL App (2d) 110646, ¶ 4. Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d) results in a deficient certificate. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 609. The remedy for failing to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) is to remand the matter to the circuit court for (1) filing a proper Rule 604(d) certificate, (2) the opportunity to file a new motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea and/or reconsider sentence, if counsel determines that new motion is necessary, and (3) a new motion hearing. People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522, 531 (2011). ¶ 8 Here, defense counsel filed a certificate that complied with only two of the three requirements of Rule 604(d). Counsel failed to include the third requirement, which states that counsel "has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings." Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). Thus, defense counsel did not strictly comply with Rule 604(d), and we must vacate the circuit court's order and remand the cause.
¶ 9 CONCLUSION
¶ 10 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County is vacated and the cause remanded. ¶ 11 Vacated and remanded.