People v. Shirley

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Travis

    704 N.E.2d 426 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 4 times
    Declining to require the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate prior to hearing in every case where the certificate must be filed

    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.

  2. People v. Shirley

    181 Ill. 2d 359 (Ill. 1998)   Cited 110 times
    Holding a defendant is only entitled to one remand where defense counsel twice failed to file a 604(d) certificate prior to or simultaneously with the hearing in the trial court

    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).

  3. People v. Wilson

    295 Ill. App. 3d 228 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 36 times
    In Wilson the defendant argued that he entered his plea based on the mistaken belief that (in the court's words) "he could automatically withdraw his plea by simply filing a motion to withdraw" (id. at 236).

    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."

  4. Disposition of Petitions for Leave to Appeal

    171 Ill. 2d 581 (Ill. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    (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.

  5. People v. Johnson

    2023 Ill. App. 5th 200308 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    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.

  6. People v. Hodges

    2013 Ill. App. 103383 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    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.

  7. People v. Marquez

    2012 Ill. App. 2d 110475 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that, in a case in which two motions to withdraw a guilty plea were filed, a certificate filed before sentencing does not strictly comply with Rule 604(d)

    ” 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.

  8. People v. Willis

    313 Ill. App. 3d 553 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 5 times
    In Willis, counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate in which he crossed out the language that he made amendments necessary for adequate preservation of defects in the proceedings.

    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.

  9. People v. Wyatt

    305 Ill. App. 3d 291 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that defendant who pleaded guilty to burglary and escape charges in return for State's promise to dismiss a theft charge and to forego prosecution of further charges was not required to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea agreement included no agreement as to the sentence

    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."