In re H.L.

2014 IL App (2d) 140486No. 2-14-0486
Opinion filed October 22, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re H.L., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of De Kalb County.
)
) Nos. 10-JD-103
) 12-JD-134
) 13-JD-199
)
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Honorable
Petitioner-Appellee, v. H.L., ) William P. Brady,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Hutchinson and Zenoff concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 This case presents the question of whether a certificate pursuant to Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) must be filed before or at the hearing on a motion to
reconsider the sentence. We hold that our supreme court has already answered the question by
holding that, as a matter of strict compliance, such a certificate must be filed at or before the
hearing on a motion to reconsider the sentence (People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (1998)), and
we disagree with and do not follow contrary appellate authority (People v. Grace, 365 Ill. App.
3d 508 (4th Dist. 2006); People v. Travis, 301 Ill. App. 3d 624 (5th Dist. 1998)).
2014 IL App (2d) 140486¶2 Respondent, H.L., admitted the allegations in the petitions to revoke his probation in case
Nos. 10-JD-103 and 12-JD-134 and the delinquency petition in case No. 13-JD-199. 1
Respondent was sentenced to indefinite commitment in the Department of Juvenile Justice. He
filed a timely motion to reconsider the sentence, the trial court denied the motion, and, about
three weeks after the hearing on the motion, respondent’s counsel filed in the trial court both a
notice of appeal and a Rule 604(d) certificate. Respondent contends on appeal that filing the
Rule 604(d) certificate after the hearing on the motion to reconsider the sentence was not in strict
compliance with the rule, thus requiring a remand to allow timely filing of the certificate, at or
before the hearing on the motion to reconsider.
¶3 We begin with the relevant language of Rule 604(d):
“No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the
defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court
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. *** The trial court shall *** determine whether the defendant is represented
by counsel, and if the defendant is indigent and desires counsel, the trial court shall
appoint counsel. *** The defendant’s attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate
1
The State and respondent both agree that, while a remand under Rule 604(d) would not
be necessary in the probation-revocation cases, those cases are so intimately intertwined with the
delinquency case that, if the delinquency case is remanded, the probation-revocation cases
should also be remanded. We agree with the parties’ reasoning and focus on the delinquency
case.
-2-
2014 IL App (2d) 140486stating 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. Feb. 6, 2013).
¶4 Respondent argues that, although, strictly speaking, the rule is silent about when the
certificate must be filed, specifying only that it is to be filed in the trial court, our supreme court
incorporated a timing requirement for strict compliance with the rule in Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at
371. The court stated:
“[S]trict compliance with the attorney certification component of Rule 604(d) means the
certificate must be filed in the trial court, rather than on appeal, as occurred in [People v.
Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994)]. The filing should precede or be simultaneous with the
hearing in the trial court. Such a procedure will insure that the trial court, in considering
a defendant’s motion to withdraw his or her guilty plea or to reduce sentence, will be
apprised that defense counsel has reviewed the proceedings with the defendant and
prepared any necessary amendments to the motion. If this standard of strict compliance
is not met, the remedy is a remand to afford defendant another opportunity to be heard on
his Rule 604(d) motion.” (Emphasis added.) Id.“[T]his standard of strict compliance,” in our view, includes both that “the certificate must be
filed in the trial court” and that “[t]he filing should precede or be simultaneous with the hearing
in the trial court.” Id. Thus, in Shirley, our supreme court held that strict compliance with the
certification requirement of Rule 604(d) includes both filing in the trial court and filing the
certificate at or before the hearing.
-3-
2014 IL App (2d) 140486¶5 We note two reported cases that found strict compliance with Rule 604(d) even though
the certificate was filed after the hearing. See Grace, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 511-12; Travis, 301 Ill.
App. 3d at 626-27. Grace relied on Travis without adding any analysis to its interpretation of
Travis. Grace, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 511-12. Travis apparently drew a distinction between
Shirley’s uses of “should” and “must” and held that our supreme court’s statement that the filing
“should” precede or be simultaneous with the hearing was only aspirational, while the statement
that the filing “must” be in the trial court was mandatory. Travis, 301 Ill. App. 3d at 626. The
Travis court further reasoned that a tardy filing of the certificate was unimportant because the
certificate still would memorialize the actions taken by the attorney, thereby protecting the
defendant’s interests, and any dispute about the certificate’s accuracy could be addressed and
resolved at the convenience of the trial court. Id. at 627. In neither Grace nor Travis did the
appellate court consider the effect of the supreme court’s statement, “if this standard of strict
compliance is not met,” which referred to the procedures it had outlined immediately before the
statement, including filing the certificate at or before the hearing (Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 371).
Grace, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 511-12; Travis, 301 Ill. App. 3d at 626-27. We believe that by this
omission the Grace and Travis courts departed from our supreme court’s holding in Shirley.
¶6 Both Grace and Travis overlooked the pertinent and controlling language of Shirley.
Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 371 (strict compliance with Rule 604(d) requires that the certificate be filed
both in the trial court and at or before the hearing in the trial court). In People v. Marquez, 2012
IL App (2d) 110475, ¶¶ 6-8, this court recognized the controlling nature of Shirley’s language.
We reasoned that adhering to the requirement of filing the certificate at or before the hearing is
“not simply an empty ritual,” because the certificate’s purpose is to “ensure that counsel has
considered all relevant bases for relief.” Id. ¶ 8. We opined that the “logically deducible
-4-
2014 IL App (2d) 140486sequence of events is: (1) entry of plea, (2) sentencing, (3) filing of motion, (4) appointment of
counsel for the proceedings on the motion, and (5) filing of certificate,” which implies that all
this is to be completed at or before the hearing Id. ¶ 7. If the certificate is not filed at or before
the hearing, the trial court cannot be sure, when conducting the hearing, that counsel has actually
considered all the relevant bases for relief or otherwise performed his or her duties under the
rule. Thus, Shirley explicitly holds, and in Marquez we expressly acknowledged, that strict
compliance with Rule 604(d) includes filing the certificate in the trial court at or before the
hearing. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 371; Marquez, 2012 IL App (2d) 110475, ¶¶ 6-8. We therefore
conclude that Grace and Travis departed from our supreme court’s express mandate concerning
the procedures comprising strict compliance with Rule 604(d), and we choose not to follow
them. See People v. Damkroger, 408 Ill. App. 3d 936, 944 (2011) (an appellate district is not
bound to follow the decisions of other appellate districts). Rather, we follow Shirley and
Marquez and hold that, in order to strictly comply with Rule 604(d), the certificate must be filed
in the trial court at or before the hearing.
¶7 Here, it is undisputed that respondent’s counsel did not file the Rule 604(d) certificate at
or before the hearing on the motion to reconsider the sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that
counsel did not strictly comply with Rule 604(d), the remedy for which is to remand for
compliance. As a result of this holding, we need not consider respondent’s arguments about the
impropriety of his sentence.
¶8 We therefore remand for (1) the timely filing of a new Rule 604(d) certificate, (2) the
opportunity to file a new Rule 604(d) motion, if counsel determines that a new motion is
necessary, and (3) a new motion hearing. See People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522, 531 (2011).
-5-
2014 IL App (2d) 140486¶9 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of De Kalb County denying
respondent’s motion to reconsider the sentence is vacated, and the delinquency and probation-
revocation causes are remanded with directions. Respondent’s counsel must be given the
opportunity to file a new Rule 604(d) motion, if necessary, and counsel must file a new Rule
604(d) certificate at or before the new motion hearing.
¶ 10 Vacated and remanded with directions.
-6-