Opinion
4-23-0197
12-26-2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEWON I C GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County No. 20CF187 Honorable William A. Yoder, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
TURNER JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: Even if new postplea counsel failed to strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), remand is not warranted.
¶ 2 On remand for proceedings in strict compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), counsel for defendant, Dewon I C Griffin, filed a Rule 604(d) certificate. After a February 2023 hearing, the McLean County circuit court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
¶ 3 Defendant appeals, contending his new counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d). We affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 In February 2020, a grand jury indicted defendant with one count of obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1) (West 2018)). The indictment alleged, on May 30, 2019, defendant committed obstructing justice in that he, with the intent to obstruct the prosecution for his driving under the influence of drugs, provided false information to Officer Brandt Parsley by identifying himself as Diontay Griffin. The indictment noted defendant was extended-term eligible based on his prior record. The State also charged him by information with one count of driving under the influence of drugs (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(4) (West 2018)) and one count of driving under the influence of cannabis (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(7) (West 2018)).
¶ 6 At the February 9, 2022, final pretrial hearing, defendant indicated he wanted to hire private counsel. The circuit court informed defendant his case was going to trial the next week. Defendant's trial was set for February 16, 2022, and on that day, defendant asked for a continuance to hire private counsel. The court denied defendant's request and noted the case was going to trial that day. It gave defendant a recess to change into civilian clothes for trial. When the court resumed the proceedings, the parties presented a plea agreement. Under the negotiated plea agreement, defendant was to plead guilty to obstructing justice with a sentence of one year in prison, and the State would request dismissal of the other two charges.
¶ 7 After receiving the plea agreement, the circuit court admonished defendant pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 (eff. July 1, 2012) and heard the following factual basis. On May 30, 2019, Officer Brandt Parsley with the Bloomington Police Department initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle at 2:30 a.m. Before approaching the vehicle, Officer Parsley saw the driver, who was later identified as defendant, move into the passenger seat and switch places with the front seat passenger. As the officer approached, he smelled cannabis on defendant, and defendant later admitted smoking cannabis the day before. When the officer asked defendant for his name, defendant repeatedly provided the name of his brother Diontay. A driving under the influence of drugs investigation ensued, and defendant showed signs of impairment on standardized sobriety tests. Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs and submitted to chemical testing, which revealed a tetrahydrocannabinol level of 6.6 nanograms per milliliter in his blood. Based upon defendant's representation, the State charged Diontay Griffin with driving under the influence of drugs (McLean County case No. 19-DT-301). Defendant's false information materially impeded the investigation, and it was not discovered until February 2020 defendant was in fact the driver.
¶ 8 After hearing the factual basis, the circuit court found defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary and a sufficient factual basis existed. It sentenced defendant to one year of imprisonment in accordance with the plea agreement.
¶ 9 On February 28, 2022, defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. One of the allegations was counsel failed to inform the circuit court of defendant's emotional and mental instability and his use of psychotropic medication. The second was counsel owed him a duty of loyalty and thus should consult with him on important decisions, which presumably counsel did not do. On April 11, 2022, the court held a preliminary inquiry in accordance with People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984). Defendant stated counsel only met with him one time and was on his cell phone the whole time. He also described his mental health issues and the medications he was taking at the time of the plea. Defendant stated he did not know what was going on when he pleaded guilty. The court declined to appoint defendant new counsel and noted defendant did not appear to have any mental health issues at the time of the plea.
¶ 10 On July 8, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defense counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate and adopted defendant's motion. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). The court revisited defendant's ineffective of assistance of counsel claims. Defendant noted he did not know what he was pleading guilty to based on his mental health issues and medications. He also stated he pleaded guilty because he was being rushed into trial even though he wanted to hire private counsel. Defense counsel responded he did not pressure defendant into accepting the plea offer and defendant gave no indication he did not understand the charges or proceedings. The court again declined to appoint new counsel and then addressed defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defense counsel argued defendant's plea was not knowing because of the medications he was taking for mental health issues. Defendant testified about his medications and their effect on him. He had taken his medications before coming to court on February 16, 2022. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court noted its recollection of defendant's behavior at the plea hearing and stated there was no question in the court's mind defendant understood everything he did on the day of the plea.
¶ 11 Defendant appealed, and this court allowed defendant's motion for an agreed summary remand because defendant's counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate did not strictly comply with Rule 604(d). People v. Griffin, No. 4-22-0587 (Dec. 9, 2022) (motion order).
¶ 12 On remand, defendant was represented by new counsel, who filed a Rule 604(d) certificate on February 24, 2023. New counsel did not file a new postplea motion. On February 27, 2023, the circuit court held a hearing on defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defense counsel again argued defendant did not know what he was doing when he pleaded guilty due to the medications defendant was taking. The court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea finding defendant entered a knowing and voluntary plea in this case. The court noted defendant knew what he was doing and was in his right mind when he pleaded guilty.
¶ 13 On March 7, 2023, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Mar. 12, 2021). Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction of defendant's appeal under Rule 604(d).
¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 15 Defendant acknowledges his new counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate in strict compliance with Rule 604(d) but contends the record shows new counsel did not actually comply with the rule. He requests another remand for strict compliance with Rule 604(d). The State argues postplea counsel substantially complied with Rule 604(d).
¶ 16 "Rule 604(d) governs the procedure to be followed when a defendant wishes to appeal from a judgment entered upon a guilty plea." In re H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 7, 48 N.E.3d 1071. For a defendant to appeal, the rule requires the defendant file in the circuit court, within 30 days of the date on which his or her sentence was imposed, "a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence is being challenged, or, if the plea is being challenged, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment." Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). However, if the defendant entered into a negotiated guilty plea, as in this case, then the rule requires the defendant to file a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment to challenge his or her sentence as excessive. Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). "[A]ny issue not raised by the defendant in the motion to reconsider the sentence or withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment shall be deemed waived." Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). The rule also requires the defendant's attorney to file in the circuit court a certificate stating the following:
"[T]he attorney has consulted with the defendant either by phone, mail, electronic means or in person to ascertain defendant's contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty, has examined the trial court file and both the
report of proceedings of the plea of guilty and the report of proceedings in the sentencing hearing, and has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings." Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017).
Our supreme court has explained the rule's purpose as follows:
" '[T]o ensure that before a criminal appeal can be taken from a guilty plea, the trial judge who accepted the plea and imposed sentence be given the opportunity to hear the allegations of improprieties that took place outside the official proceedings and dehors the record, but nevertheless were unwittingly given sanction in the courtroom.'" H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 9 (quoting People v. Wilk, 124 Ill.2d 93, 104, 529 N.E.2d 218, 221-22 (1988)).
Rule 604(d)'s certificate requirement" 'enables the trial court to insure that counsel has reviewed the defendant's claim and considered all relevant bases for the motion to withdraw the guilty plea or to reconsider the sentence.'" H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 10 (quoting People v. Shirley, 181 Ill.2d 359, 361, 692 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (1998)).
¶ 17 Our supreme court requires strict compliance with Rule 604(d), and counsel's failure to strictly comply requires remand to the circuit court. People v. Janes, 158 Ill.2d 27, 33, 630 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1994). Here, defendant's counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate on February 24, 2023. Even where counsel has filed a facially valid Rule 604(d) certificate, as in this case, the court "may consult the record to determine whether [he or] she actually fulfilled [his or] her obligations under Rule 604(d)." People v. Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 8, 87 N.E.3d 441. We review de novo whether defense counsel complied with Rule 604(d). People v. Grice, 371 Ill.App.3d 813, 815, 867 N.E.2d 1143, 1145 (2007).
¶ 18 Defendant cites People v. Love, 385 Ill.App.3d 736, 739, 896 N.E.2d 1062, 1066 (2008), where the reviewing court concluded the record impeached counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate regarding the duty to examine the report of proceedings and thus the reviewing court remanded the cause for further proceedings. There, counsel made a comment about needing to review the transcript of the plea before she filed a motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea. Love, 385 Ill.App.3d at 737, 896 N.E.2d at 1065. In viewing that remark in a larger context, the reviewing court was left with the distinct impression the defense counsel had not examined the transcript when counsel filed her Rule 604(d) certificate. Love, 385 Ill.App.3d at 737, 896 N.E.2d at 1065. The court further found unacceptable a Rule 604(d) certificate filed merely in anticipation of compliance with the rule's substantive requirements. Love, 385 Ill.App.3d at 738, 896 N.E.2d at 1065. Last, the reviewing court rejected the State's argument the defendant was not entitled to any relief. Love, 385 Ill.App.3d at 738-39, 896 N.E.2d at 1066. The court explained it could not comfortably say the defendant had a fair opportunity on remand to challenge his guilty plea and thus it did not believe a second remand would be an empty and wasteful formality. Love, 385 Ill.App.3d at 739, 896 N.E.2d at 1066.
¶ 19 Defendant also cites Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 12, where the reviewing court vacated the denial of the defendant's amended motion to withdraw his plea and remanded for new Rule 604(d) proceedings because counsel failed to comply with Rule 604(d). There, counsel failed to attach an affidavit or present the defendant's testimony or any other evidence in support of the defendant's motion. Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 9. The reviewing court also noted the hearing on the motion was inadequate to satisfy Rule 604(d)'s strict-compliance standard. Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 10. We note Bridges involved the initial proceedings on the defendant's Rule 604(d) motion and not subsequent proceedings after the case had been remanded for new Rule 604(d) proceedings. See Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 1.
¶ 20 In contrast, in People v. Brown, 2023 IL App (4th) 220573, ¶ 50, 218 N.E.3d 527, this court found remand for noncompliance with Rule 604(d) was not warranted. Specifically, this court held "[w]here postplea counsel files a facially compliant Rule 604(d) certificate and the trial court determines after a full and fair hearing that the defendant's claims are meritless, defects in the pleadings do not justify a remand for further proceedings." Brown, 2023 IL App (4th) 220573, ¶ 50. We recognized "it would be an exercise in futility and a waste of judicial resources to remand for an attorney to replead a claim that has already been adjudicated meritless." Brown, 2023 IL App (4th) 220573, ¶ 50.
¶ 21 Here, defendant raised only ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The circuit court basically conducted a Krankel inquiry twice and found the appointment of new counsel was not warranted either time. Plea counsel then orally amended one of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims to assert defendant's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to defendant taking psychotropic medication. Plea counsel then had defendant testify. After hearing defendant's testimony and the parties' arguments, the court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court relied on its own recollection and noted defendant knew what he was doing on the day of the plea hearing. Defendant appealed, and this court remanded the cause for new Rule 604(d) proceedings due to a facially defective Rule 604(d) certificate. New counsel filed a proper Rule 604(d) certificate and relied on defendant's motion and prior testimony. The court again relied on its recollection and found defendant knew what he was doing at the time he pleaded guilty.
¶ 22 Defendant contends the case should be remanded because new counsel could have provided supporting evidence for his claim the medications adversely affected him and to argue he felt rushed into the plea. Even if counsel was required to do the aforementioned actions to comply with Rule 604(d), it would not have changed the outcome of the proceedings in the circuit court. The court held an evidentiary hearing on the medication issue and found it meritless. The matter was also addressed at the Krankel inquiries. As to the second matter, defendant raised it at the second Krankel inquiry, defense counsel denied pressuring defendant, and the court declined to appoint new counsel. As such, defendant has had multiple opportunities to challenge his guilty plea proceedings, and the court has found his claims meritless each time. Remanding this case for more postplea proceedings would be a waste of judicial resources. Thus, we decline to do so.
¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 24 For the reasons stated, we affirm the McLean County circuit court's judgment.
¶ 25 Affirmed.