People v. Milian , 432 Ill. Dec. 885 ( 2019 )

2019 IL App (3d) 150212-BOpinion filed May 22, 2019
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit,
) La Salle County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-15-0212
v. ) Circuit No. 14-CF-264
)
WILLIAM J. MILIAN, ) Honorable
) H. Chris Ryan,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Presiding Justice Schmidt specially concurred, with opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 Defendant, William J. Milian, appeals from the denial of his motion to reconsider
sentence, arguing that a new Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017) certificate
needs to be filed and new postplea proceedings held as the filed certificate was not compliant
with the amended rule. We vacate the circuit court’s decision on the motion to reconsider and
remand for new postplea proceedings.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 Defendant entered a blind guilty plea to attempted first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/8-
4(a), 9-1(a) (West 2014)) and was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment. Defense counsel filed a
motion to reconsider sentence on February 13, 2015, which was denied on March 27, 2015.
Defense counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate, which stated:
“I have consulted with the Defendant, in person to ascertain his/her
contentions of error in the entry of his/her plea of guilty in the above-entitled
cause.
I have consulted with the Defendant, in person to ascertain his/her
contentions of error in the sentence in the above-entitled cause.
I have examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea of
guilty.
I have made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate
presentation of any defects in those proceedings.” (Emphases in original.)
¶4 On appeal, this court held that the March 2016 amendment to Rule 604(d) applied
retroactively to defense counsel’s certificate. We found that, since counsel’s certificate did not
state that he examined the report of proceedings for the sentencing hearing, as the amended rule
required, his certificate was deficient. We thus remanded for new postplea proceedings. The
State filed a petition for leave to appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the petition and, in
its supervisory authority, vacated this court’s judgment. People v. Milian, No. 122621 (Ill. Jan.
31, 2019) (supervisory order). It ordered this court to reconsider in light of its decision in People
v. Easton, 2018 IL 122187.
¶5 ANALYSIS
-2-
¶6 On appeal, defendant argues that defense counsel failed to comply with the certification
requirements of Rule 604(d) and requests that we remand the case for new postplea proceedings.
Specifically, defendant contends that counsel’s certificate is deficient because it fails to verify
that counsel examined the report of proceedings for the sentencing hearing. Though the
amendments in Rule 604(d) do not apply retroactively, we find that the certificate is deficient
because it fails to show that counsel reviewed the transcripts of the sentencing hearing before
filing the motion to reconsider sentence.
¶7 Rule 604(d) governs the procedures to be followed when a defendant wishes to appeal
after pleading guilty. One requirement of Rule 604(d) is that counsel file a certificate averring
that he or she has consulted with defendant about any contentions of error and has reviewed the
transcripts. Rule 604(d) demands strict compliance with each element of the certification
requirement. People v. Gonzalez, 2017 IL App (3d) 160183, ¶ 13; People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27,
33 (1994). Rule 604(d) currently states, inter alia,
“The defendant’s attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate stating that the
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).
-3-
However, Rule 604(d) went through multiple iterations to get to the current version. See Ill. S.
Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Dec. 3, 2015); R. 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016); R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). At
the time counsel’s certificate was filed in February 2015, Rule 604(d) stated, in pertinent part:
“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 sentence 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.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Dec. 11, 2014).
In sum, the current version of the rule includes two main changes from the rule in effect in
February 2015. First, the current version requires counsel to aver he or she consulted with the
defendant regarding any contentions of error in the sentence and the plea of guilty, while prior
versions required counsel to aver that he or she had consulted with the defendant regarding any
contentions of error in the sentence or the plea of guilty. Second, the current version requires
averring that counsel has examined the transcripts of both the plea of guilty and the sentencing
hearing, while the rule in effect at the time the certificate was filed only required counsel to aver
he or she had examined the transcripts of the plea of guilty.
¶8 Defendant argues that we should retroactively apply the amended portion of Rule 604(d).
Our supreme court considered a similar issue in Easton, 2018 IL 122187. Defense counsel filed a
Rule 604(d) certificate on October 29, 2014, with a motion to reconsider. Id. ¶ 4. The certificate
stated, “ ‘I have consulted with the Defendant in person to ascertain his contentions of error in
the imposition of the sentence or the entry of plea of guilty[.]’ ” Id. ¶ 5. While the defendant’s
appeal was pending, Rule 604(d) was amended to require that counsel certify that he or she had
-4-
consulted with the defendant about contentions of error both in the sentence and the entry of the
plea of guilty. Id. ¶ 6. On appeal, the
“defendant argued that the amended version of Rule 604(d) applied retroactively
to his case and that his counsel’s certificate failed to satisfy the requirements of
the amended rule because counsel did not certify that she had consulted with him
as to his contentions of error with regard to both his guilty plea and his sentence.”
Id. ¶ 7.
The appellate court held that the amended rule applied retroactively and, therefore, defense
counsel’s certificate was deficient because “it did not certify that she had consulted with
defendant as to his contentions of error with regard to both his guilty plea and his sentence, and it
did not certify that she had reviewed the report of proceedings of the sentencing hearing.” Id. ¶ 8.
The State appealed. Id. ¶ 9.
¶9 On appeal, the supreme court stated that,
“section 4 of the Statute on Statutes requires that ‘ “the proceedings thereafter”—
after the enactment of the new procedural statute—“shall conform, so far as
practicable, to the laws in force at the time of such proceeding.” ’ (Emphasis in
original.) [People v.] Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 31 (quoting 5 ILCS 70/4 (West
2016)). Thus, ‘[s]ection 4 contemplates the existence of proceedings after the new
or amended [rule] is effective to which the new procedure could apply.’ Id. This
understanding of section 4 has been acknowledged by our use of the phrase
‘ongoing proceedings’ when referring to the retroactive application of a
procedural amendment under that provision. Id.” Id. ¶ 21.
-5-
The court further noted that just because a new rule is procedural in nature did not mean that it
applied to every pending case. Id. ¶ 22. The court held that Rule 604(d) did not apply
retroactively to the defendant’s case, stating,
“In this case, defendant’s postplea proceedings in the circuit court were
completed more than a year before Rule 604(d) was amended in December 2015.
As a consequence, there were no ‘ongoing proceedings’ to which the amended
rule would apply. The result of the appellate court’s decision was to necessitate
new proceedings in order to apply an amendment to a procedural rule that
postdated the postplea proceedings. That conclusion is not warranted under our
retroactivity jurisprudence, and as expressed in Hunter, we ‘have grave concerns
about such a result.’ ” Id. ¶ 23 (quoting Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 33).
¶ 10 As in Easton, defendant’s postplea proceedings had been completed for a significant
period of time before Rule 604(d) was first amended. “[T]here were no ‘ongoing proceedings’ to
which the amended rule would apply.” Id. Therefore, we will not apply Rule 604(d)
retroactively.
¶ 11 However, our inquiry does not stop there. After finding that Rule 604(d) did not apply
retroactively, the supreme court in Easton turned to “whether defense counsel’s certificate
satisfied the requirements of the rule that was in effect when the certificate and notice of appeal
were filed.” Id. ¶ 25. Defense counsel’s certificate stated, “ ‘I have consulted with the Defendant
in person to ascertain his contentions of error in the imposition of the sentence or the entry of
plea of guilty[.]’ ” Id. ¶ 5. The certificate specifically mimicked the language of Rule 604(d) in
effect at that time. The supreme court noted that in People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 7, it
-6-
“addressed the scope of defense counsel’s obligations under that version of Rule
604(d) to determine whether the rule ‘requires counsel to certify that he consulted
with the defendant regarding defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence and
the guilty plea, or only regarding contentions of error relevant to the defendant’s
post-plea motion.’ (Emphasis in original.)” Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 28
(quoting Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 7).
The court went on to say,
“We noted that Rule 604(d) is designed to ensure that any potential errors
in the entry of a guilty plea are brought to the trial court’s attention prior to the
filing of an appeal. [Citation.] We also observed that the certificate requirement
included in the rule ‘enable[s] the trial court to ensure 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.’ *** [Citation.] We
determined that, with regard to defense counsel’s consultation obligation, a literal
reading of the word ‘or’ is at variance with the rule’s purpose and frustrates the
goal of allowing trial courts to address potential improprieties in the guilty plea
before an appeal is taken. [Citation.] However, construing the rule to require that
counsel certify he or she consulted with the defendant about both sentencing and
plea errors makes it more likely that all potential errors are addressed in the
postplea proceeding.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Tousignant, 2014
IL 115329, ¶ 16).
-7-
The court stated that solely “tracking the ‘text’ of the rule is inadequate.” Id. ¶ 35. The court held
that counsel’s certificate did not comply with Rule 604(d) and, thus, remanded for new postplea
proceedings. Id. ¶ 37.
¶ 12 Though Easton considered a different portion of Rule 604(d), we find its reasoning
equally applicable, here. As stated above (supra ¶ 7), at the time defense counsel filed the
certificate, Rule 604(d) stated, inter alia,
“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 sentence 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.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Dec. 11, 2014).
While the plain language of this version of Rule 604(d) does not specifically state that defense
counsel must examine the report of proceedings for the sentencing hearing, the purpose of the
rule is to ensure that all errors are brought to the court’s attention and that counsel has
“ ‘considered all relevant bases for the motion to withdraw the guilty plea or to reconsider the
sentence.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 29 (quoting Tousignant, 2014 IL
115329, ¶ 16).
¶ 13 Here, counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence. In order to adequately consider all
potential errors in the sentence, defense counsel needed to examine the report of proceedings for
the sentencing hearing. The certificate did not indicate to the court that counsel had done so.
Therefore, we find that the certificate “does not serve as a guarantee of compliance with Rule
604(d)’s imperatives.” Id. ¶ 34. Therefore, we remand the cause “for new postplea proceedings,
-8-
including (1) the filing of a new Rule 604(d) certificate; (2) the opportunity to file a new motion
to withdraw the guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentence, if counsel concludes that a new
motion is necessary; and (3) a new motion hearing.” Id. ¶ 37.
¶ 14 CONCLUSION
¶ 15 The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is vacated and remanded with
instructions.
¶ 16 Vacated and remanded with instructions.
¶ 17 PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring:
¶ 18 I concur but write separately to point out the obvious. The supreme court demands strict
compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Easton and Tousignant
hold that the supreme court expects attorneys to strictly comply with what it intended its rule to
say, rather than what the rule says. Perhaps there is a better avenue.
-9-