Shirley, 181 Ill.2d at 362, 692 N.E.2d at 1191. Although a literal reading of the rule does not require that the certificate be filed prior to the postplea hearing ( People v. Shirley, 284 Ill. App.3d 734, 738, 672 N.E.2d 1340, 1343 (1996), aff'd, 181 Ill.2d 359, 692 N.E.2d 1189 (1998)), the filing should precede or be simultaneous with the hearing in the trial court. Shirley, 181 Ill.2d at 371, 692 N.E.2d at 1195.
Although the appellate panel acknowledged that Rule 604(d) clearly "contemplates that the certificate be filed prior to the hearing on a postplea motion," the panel nonetheless rejected defendant's argument that the tardy filing of the certificate required another remand for further proceedings. 284 Ill. App.3d 734, 737. The appellate panel held that the contents of the assistant public defender's certificate strictly complied with the requirements of Rule 604(d).
People v. Janes, 158 Ill.2d 27, 32, 630 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1994). In People v. Shirley, 284 Ill. App.3d 734, 738, 672 N.E.2d 1340, 1343 (1996), the certificate stated, in pertinent part, "[D]efendant offers no amendments to the Motion to Reconsider/Reduce Sentence." The appellate court held this language strictly complied with Rule 604(d)'s requirement that the certificate state the attorney "has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings."
(82258) People v. Schaffer Rule 23 Order No. 1-94-2896, filed 09/13/96 ....................................... Denied. (82485) People v. Shirley 284 Ill. App.3d 734................................. Allowed. (82389) People v. Siwek Nos. 2-95-0668, 2-95-1370, filed 09/16/96 ............ Denied.
This certificate, which closely tracks the language of Rule 604(d), demonstrates strict compliance with the rule. People v. Shirley, 284 Ill.App.3d 734, 738 (1996). Accordingly, we agree with OS AD that, because postplea counsel complied with the requirements of Rule 604(d), no meritorious argument could be raised on appeal regarding the certificate filed in this case.
The appellate court acknowledged that "Rule 604(d) clearly 'contemplates that the certificate be filed prior to the hearing on a postplea motion,' " but rejected the defendant's argument that another remand for further proceedings was required. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 366, quoting People v. Shirley, 284 Ill. App. 3d 734, 737 (1996). The appellate court found that the contents of postplea counsel's certificate strictly complied with the requirements of Rule 604(d), and any error regarding the timing of the filing was harmless.
” Id. at 178, 197 Ill.Dec. 170, 630 N.E.2d 1294.¶ 6 It appears, however, that in People v. Shirley, 181 Ill.2d 359, 371, 230 Ill.Dec. 23, 692 N.E.2d 1189 (1998), our supreme court was unimpressed with this line of reasoning, which the appellate court in Shirley had extended to cases where a certificate is filed after a ruling on the motion ( People v. Shirley, 284 Ill.App.3d 734, 738, 220 Ill.Dec. 328, 672 N.E.2d 1340 (1996)). Just as there is no explicit requirement that the certificate be filed after sentencing, there is also no explicit requirement that it be filed before the ruling on the motion.
Wyatt, 305 Ill. App.3d at 297. Similarly, in People v. Shirley, 284 Ill. App.3d 734, 738 (1996), aff'd, 181 Ill.2d 359 (1998), which was also cited by the State, the certificate explicitly reflected that no amendments were offered to the motion to reconsider the sentence. Here, the certificate did not contain a verbatim recitation of the language of Rule 604(d) or the language that was held to be a suitable substitute in Wyatt and in Shirley.
A Rule 604(d) certificate functions as a basis upon which the trial court can determine that defense counsel has performed his duties under the rule and gives the record a clear indication of the extent of counsel's performance, which might not otherwise appear on the record. People v. Shirley, 284 Ill. App.3d 734, 737 (1996). The certificate in this case clearly states that defense counsel consulted with defendant about any contention of error and reviewed the court file and the report of proceedings in order to make "any amendments necessary for an adequate presentation of any defects in the proceedings."