People v. Eckwood

2026 IL App (4th) 250051-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 4-25-0051
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 250051-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-25-0051 January 5, 2026 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Peoria County BRANDON L. ECKWOOD, ) No. 23CF261 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Paul E. Bauer, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lannerd and Grischow concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The appellate court vacated the trial court’s denial of defendant’s postplea motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded for strict compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶2 In July 2023, defendant, Brandon L. Eckwood, pleaded guilty to three counts of

aggravated battery, a Class X felony (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1), (h) (West 2022)), and one count

of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, a Class 2 felony (id. § 24-1.1(a), (e)). Pursuant to

the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years’ imprisonment for

each of the aggravated battery offenses and 4 years’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of a

weapon by a felon, with all the sentences to be served concurrently.

¶3 In August 2023, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court

denied defendant’s motion following a hearing.

¶4 In January 2024, this court granted summary remand for Rule 604(d) compliance, ordering, inter alia, “a new hearing on [defendant’s] motion, and strict compliance with the

requirements of Rule 604(d).” People v. Eckwood, No. 4-23-0779 (2024) (order).

¶5 In January 2025, the trial court found postplea counsel’s certificate to be

compliant with Rule 604(d) (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024)) and reappointed the

Office of the State Appellate Defender without holding a new hearing on defendant’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea.

¶6 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court failed to hold a new hearing and

(2) postplea counsel failed to make necessary amendments to his postplea motion, as required by

Rule 604(d). We vacate the trial court’s denial of defendant’s postplea motion to withdraw his

guilty plea and remand for strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 604(d).

¶7 I. BACKGROUND

¶8 In April 2023, the State charged defendant with three counts of aggravated battery

(720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(e)(1) (West 2022)) (counts I through III) and one count of unlawful

possession of a weapon by a felon (id. § 24-1.1(a)) (count IV). For the aggravated battery

charges, the State alleged defendant knowingly discharged a handgun in the direction of Shekeila

Miller, Tonya Norman, and Laquartris Ford, causing injuries to all three individuals. For the

unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon charge, the State alleged defendant knowingly

possessed a firearm and had been previously convicted of a Class 1 felony.

¶9 In July 2023, defendant pleaded guilty to all four counts. In exchange, the State

agreed to 14 years’ imprisonment for each aggravated battery offense and 4 years’ imprisonment

for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, with all the sentences to run concurrently.

¶ 10 The trial court heard the following factual basis for defendant’s plea. On March

13, 2023, officers were called to KG’s Sports Bar and Grill on a “triple shooting” in the early

-2- morning hours where “two females and a male outside of the front end of the bar[ ]had been

shot.” Surveillance video showed an individual, later identified as defendant, leaving the bar and

then returning “around the back of the bar and from the sight of the individuals that were

subsequently shot at the front door.” Defendant “[p]ulled out a weapon, fired that weapon, and

the [victims] were struck in their legs either with the projectiles or debris that was in the parking

lot.” All three victims were treated at the hospital for superficial wounds. Defendant was brought

to the Peoria County Sheriff’s Office. Defendant gave a voluntary statement indicating he fired

at Ford due to an ongoing argument and did not intend to shoot Miller or Norman.

¶ 11 The trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea and sentenced him consistently

with the State’s agreement.

¶ 12 A. Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw His Guilty Plea

¶ 13 Following the plea hearing, defendant retained new counsel, Gary Morris, to

represent him in postplea proceedings.

¶ 14 In August 2023, Morris filed a motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea. The

motion alleged defendant’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary where (1) defendant had

insufficient contact with plea counsel and was not able to review discovery; (2) the trial court

failed to admonish defendant one year of mandatory supervised release attached to his unlawful

possession of a weapon by a felon conviction; (3) a consolidated case, Peoria County case No.

23-MT-781, remained unresolved; and (4) the judgment sheet listed incorrect sentences, which

were inconsistent with the sentencing transcript. The motion also alleged defendant “was

informed after the incident that one of the two alleged female victims was not shot by him but by

[another] shooter *** contrary to the [State’s] version of the facts.” Morris attached a transcript

of the earlier plea hearing but no supporting affidavits. In his Rule 604(d) certificate, Morris did

-3- not assert he made any necessary amendments for an adequate presentation of defects in the plea

proceedings.

¶ 15 B. Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw His Plea

¶ 16 On September 7, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to withdraw

defendant’s guilty plea. The court acknowledged Morris had filed a Rule 604(d) certificate.

Morris stated he consulted the court record on file but did not have the opportunity to review

defendant’s “personal file” from the public defender. The court asserted Morris could have

reviewed defendant’s file in the month after his filing and before the hearing. Morris reiterated

he was unable to add defendant’s file to the motion. The court explained other attorneys usually

file amendments to their pleadings, and Morris responded: “I guess you’re right about that,

Judge. That’s right. I was of the opinion you had to get everything in that motion that you know

of and that was everything I knew on the date that I filed it[,] the last day.” Morris insisted he

was ready to proceed on the motion. Before moving forward, the court confirmed Morris had

looked at the court file, talked to defendant on a number of occasions, and addressed his

contentions of error. Morris called both defendant’s plea counsel, Jonathan McEldowney, and

defendant to testify.

¶ 17 1. Plea Counsel’s Testimony

¶ 18 McEldowney testified he was the public defender who represented defendant

beginning in July 2023 and through his guilty plea. When questioned about discovery, he

explained he received initial reports, videos, and copies of defendant’s statements to police.

McEldowney testified he did not show defendant the videos or have defendant read the police

reports. According to McEldowney, defendant confirmed he was the individual in the video

discharging the firearm and acknowledged the statement he made to police. McEldowney

-4- recalled presenting the State’s plea offer to defendant at their first meeting a week before the plea

date. McEldowney also recalled speaking with defendant on the plea date and discussing the

sentencing range on the Class X felonies. On cross-examination, McEldowney testified

defendant had no outstanding questions as to the contents of the evidence when he decided to

plead guilty.

¶ 19 On redirect examination, McEldowney testified there was no plea agreement as to

case No. 23-MT-781, a consolidated case involving a traffic offense. He explained the parties

were under the impression the traffic offense had already been dismissed. McEldowney stated

the parties did not discuss the case, but he believed the parties intended to “dismiss the

misdemeanor traffic ticket.” McEldowney confirmed he never discussed the traffic case with

defendant.

¶ 20 2. Defendant’s Testimony

¶ 21 Defendant testified he spoke with McEldowney at their first meeting on June 29,

2023, and before his guilty plea on July 6, 2023. Defendant admitted he did not ask to see the

discovery before pleading guilty but stated he did not know it was available. According to

defendant, McEldowney did not explain to him the sentencing range for count IV or why he was

extended-term eligible.

¶ 22 On cross-examination, defendant stated he did not remember shooting three

people. He suggested he did not refute the State’s factual basis at the plea hearing because he did

not know he could say anything. Defendant confirmed he did not bring up issues with the factual

basis to McEldowney. He agreed the trial court advised him of his sentence on the day he

pleaded guilty.

¶ 23 On redirect, defendant insisted McEldowney should have been more

-5- communicative, cooperative, and informative as his attorney. Defendant testified he called

McEldowney’s office and was told McEldowney would visit, but he never did.

¶ 24 3. Trial Court’s Ruling

¶ 25 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court

found nothing in the motion, transcript, or hearing to suggest defendant did not enter the plea

knowingly and voluntarily. According to the court, the fact defendant was not shown discovery

did not undermine the plea but was a regular occurrence, especially when a defendant has

“basically acknowledged” he committed the offense. The court entered a separate order to

dismiss case No. 23-MT-781 with defendant’s consent. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472

(eff. May 17, 2019), the court corrected the judgment sheet to properly reflect the terms of the

plea agreement for counts III and IV.

¶ 26 Defendant appealed. In January 2024, this court granted an agreed motion for a

summary remand for Rule 604(d) compliance, ordering “the filing of a new [Rule] 604(d)

certificate, the opportunity to file a new post-plea motion, if counsel concludes that a new motion

is necessary, a new hearing on the motion, and strict compliance with the requirements of Rule

604(d).” Eckwood, No. 4-23-0779 (2024) (order).

¶ 27 C. Proceedings on Remand

¶ 28 In August 2024, Morris filed a second Rule 604(d) certificate but did not certify

he made the necessary amendments for an adequate presentation of defects in the plea

proceedings. The trial court noted the certificate’s lack of compliance and required Morris to file

a certificate “adopting the appearance and content” of the form it provided. In September 2024,

Morris filed a third Rule 604(d) certificate in accordance with the form’s language. At status

hearings in September and December 2024, the parties discussed the requirement of having a

-6- hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

¶ 29 In January 2025, the trial court found Morris’s certificate was compliant with

Rule 604(d) and reappointed the Office of the State Appellate Defender without holding a new

hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court observed no new motions

had been filed and suggested defendant’s motion had “already been denied” in September 2023.

¶ 30 This appeal followed.

¶ 31 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 32 On appeal, defendant argues the proceedings on remand failed to comply with

Rule 604(d) because (1) the trial court neglected to conduct a new hearing and (2) postplea

counsel failed to make necessary amendments to defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

We agree and remand for strict compliance with Rule 604(d).

¶ 33 “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. Rule 604(d)

requires counsel representing a defendant on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea to certify 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. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 34 Strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required. People v. Gorss, 2022 IL 126464,

-7- ¶ 19. If counsel fails to make the required certifications under Rule 604(d), remand is required,

and this court “does not need to look any further than the certificate itself.” People v. Curtis,

2021 IL App (4th) 190658, ¶ 35. If counsel files a facially valid certificate, a reviewing court

“may consult the record to determine whether she actually fulfilled her obligations under Rule

604(d).” People v. Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 8. Whether counsel strictly complied

with Rule 604(d) is a question of law reviewed de novo. Gorss, 2022 IL 126464, ¶ 10.

¶ 35 A. New Hearing Requirement

¶ 36 In January 2024, this court granted an agreed motion for summary remand for

Rule 604(d) compliance, ordering “the filing of a new [Rule] 604(d) certificate, the opportunity

to file a new post-plea motion, if counsel concludes that a new motion is necessary, a new

hearing on the motion, and strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 604(d).”

¶ 37 Unlike the opportunity to file a new postplea motion, a “new hearing” on remand

for Rule 604(d) compliance is not optional. In People v. Fricks, 2017 IL App (2d) 160493, ¶ 3,

the Second District held “a defendant is not permitted” to choose, through counsel, not to

exercise the right to a hearing on his postplea motion on remand for Rule 604(d) compliance.

Even when counsel is “ ‘standing on’ ” a prior motion, a trial court’s failure to hold a new

hearing warrants a remand. Id. ¶ 1. This court has recently agreed with the holding in Fricks. See

People v. Guth, 2023 IL App (4th) 230240-U, ¶ 23. In Guth, this court ordered a further remand

for Rule 604(d) compliance when a defendant received no meaningful hearing on his postplea

motion on the initial remand for Rule 604(d) compliance. Id. ¶¶ 20-23.

¶ 38 Here, the trial court declined to hold a new hearing on defendant’s postplea

motion after it observed postplea counsel had filed a proper Rule 604(d) certificate and had not

filed a new motion. Because defendant did not receive a meaningful new hearing on his postplea

-8- motion to withdraw his guilty plea, a further remand is required.

¶ 39 B. Affidavits Requirement

¶ 40 Although we remand this case for a full hearing, we find it necessary to address

counsel’s Rule 604(d) certification he made necessary amendments to defendant’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea where the record refutes this certification.

¶ 41 Under Rule 604(d), a postplea motion “based on facts that do not appear of record

shall be supported by affidavit.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Apr. 15, 2024). In such cases, the

failure to substantiate new allegations with evidentiary support “refutes counsel’s certification”

he made necessary amendments to the postplea motion. Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 9.

¶ 42 Here, postplea counsel newly alleged in his motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty

plea defendant “was informed after the incident that one of the two alleged female victims was

not shot by [defendant] but by the other shooter which is contrary to the [State’s] version of the

facts.” The new allegation of another shooter was based on facts not in the record; however,

counsel failed to attach any affidavits in support. Postplea counsel’s failure to provide supporting

affidavits rebuts his compliance with Rule 604(d). See id. ¶¶ 9, 12 (remanding for compliance

where counsel failed to attach any affidavits to substantiate new allegations raised in the postplea

motion).

¶ 43 Accordingly, we vacate the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty

plea and remand for the filing of a new Rule 604(d) certificate, the opportunity to file a new

postplea motion, if counsel concludes a new motion is necessary, a new hearing on the motion,

and strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 604(d).

¶ 44 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 45 For the reasons stated, we vacate the trial court’s judgment denying defendant’s

-9- motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remand for further postplea proceedings in accordance

with this decision.

¶ 46 Vacated and remanded with directions.

- 10 -