NO. 5-95-0608
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
_________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) St. Clair County.
)
v. ) Nos. 93-CF-342 & 93-CF-254
STEVEN M. SHIRLEY, ) Honorable
) Michael J. O'Malley,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE HOPKINS delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant, Steven M. Shirley, appeals from the denial of his
motion to reduce sentence. This case has previously been before
this court. On this appeal, defendant contends again that there
has not been strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (134
Ill. 2d R. 604(d)).
On September 28, 1993, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated
battery, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and unlawful produc-
tion of cannabis sativa plant. The State agreed to not recommend
sentences in excess of 15 years' imprisonment for aggravated
battery and aggravated criminal sexual assault. The State also
agreed to recommend probation for the cannabis offense.
On November 24, 1993, defendant was sentenced to concurrent
terms of imprisonment of two years for aggravated battery and 12
years for aggravated criminal sexual assault. He was sentenced on
the unlawful production of cannabis sativa plant conviction to a
conditional discharge for two years, to be served consecutively to
the prison sentences. He subsequently filed a motion to reduce
sentences, which was denied. His counsel did not file a certifi-
cate of compliance with Rule 604(d). This court, therefore,
reversed that portion of the judgment denying the motion to reduce
sentences, and we remanded the cause to the circuit court of St.
Clair County for the filing of a new motion to reduce sentences and
for further proceedings in conformity with People v. Janes, 158
Ill. 2d 27, 630 N.E.2d 790 (1994). People v. Shirley, No. 5-94-
0175, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (April 10, 1995)
(unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 (134 Ill. 2d
R. 23)).
On June 27, 1995, the trial court appointed the public
defender to represent defendant. On July 11, 1995, an assistant
public defender filed a "Motion to reduce/modify sentence". On
August 3, 1995, the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
On August 7, 1995, the assistant public defender filed a Rule
604(d) certificate and a notice of appeal. The Rule 604(d)
certificate states:
"I, Kathleen Fleshren, attorney for the defendant in this
cause, state that I have consulted with the defendant to
ascertain his contentions of error in this cause; that I
have examined the trial court file and report of proceed-
ings of the plea of guilty and sentencing hearing, and
that defendant offers no amendments to the Motion To
Reconsider/Reduce Sentence.
/s/ Kathleen Fleshren
Assistant Public Defender"
On appeal, defendant cites People v. Reed, 213 Ill. App. 3d
855, 572 N.E.2d 437 (1991), People v. Morris, 256 Ill. App. 3d 618,
628 N.E.2d 1175 (1994), People v. Dean, 61 Ill. App. 3d 612, 378
N.E.2d 248 (1978), and People v. Hayes, 195 Ill. App. 3d 957, 553
N.E.2d 30 (1990), for the proposition that the filing of defense
counsel's certificate of compliance with Rule 604(d) is a condition
precedent to a hearing on the motion filed under the rule. See
also People v. Sawyer, 258 Ill. App. 3d 174, 630 N.E.2d 1294
(1994); People v. Hancock, 208 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 567 N.E.2d 633
(1991); People v. Dickerson, 212 Ill. App. 3d 168, 570 N.E.2d 902
(1991); People v. Ramage, 229 Ill. App. 3d 1027, 595 N.E.2d 222
(1992); People v. Holford, 233 Ill. App. 3d 12, 598 N.E.2d 420
(1992); People v. Heinz, 259 Ill. App. 3d 709, 632 N.E.2d 338
(1994); People v. Ritchie, 258 Ill. App. 3d 164, 630 N.E.2d 171
(1994); People v. Davis, 255 Ill. App. 3d 647, 627 N.E.2d 749
(1994). The State objects on the basis that Rule 604(d) does not
provide when, between the time sentence is imposed and the time the
notice of appeal is filed, counsel's certificate is to be filed in
the trial court. Rule 604(d) provides in pertinent part:
"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 his plea and
vacate the judgment. *** The trial court shall then
determine whether the defendant is represented by
counsel, and if defendant is indigent and desires
counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel. If the
defendant is indigent, the trial court shall order a copy
of the transcript as provided in Rule 402(e) be furnished
the defendant without cost. 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 his contentions of
error in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty,
has examined the trial court file and report of proceed-
ings of the plea of guilty, and has made any amendments
to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any
defects in the proceedings. The motion shall be heard
promptly, and if allowed, the trial court shall modify
the sentence or vacate the judgment and permit the
defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty and plead anew.
If the motion is denied, a notice of appeal from the
judgment and sentence shall be filed ***." 134 Ill. 2d
R. 604(d).
In none of the cases cited above in this opinion was a
certificate filed in the trial court between the date of a hearing
on the postplea motion and the filing of the notice of appeal. In
the following cases, no certificate was filed in the trial court:
Morris, 256 Ill. App. 3d 618, 628 N.E.2d 1175; Heinz, 259 Ill. App.
3d 709, 632 N.E.2d 338; Ramage, 229 Ill. App. 3d 1027, 595 N.E.2d
222; Dickerson, 212 Ill. App. 3d 168, 570 N.E.2d 902; Hancock, 208
Ill. App. 3d 1092, 567 N.E.2d 633; and Davis, 255 Ill. App. 3d 749,
627 N.E.2d 749. In the following cases, the first attempt at
filing the certificate was made in the appellate court: People v.
Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 630 N.E.2d 790 (1994) (Janes I); Holford,
233 Ill. App. 3d 12, 598 N.E.2d 420; Reed, 213 Ill. App. 3d 855,
572 N.E.2d 437; and Dean, 61 Ill. App. 3d 612, 378 N.E.2d 248.
This court is aware that in People v. Janes, 168 Ill. 2d 382, 660
N.E.2d 980 (1995) (Janes II), our supreme court stated, "When this
court remanded this cause back to the trial court for compliance
with Rule 604(d), it did so not because the affidavit itself was
improper, but because Rule 604(d) requires that this affidavit be
filed prior to making a motion to withdraw a guilty plea," and,
"[T]his court ultimately ruled in Janes I, 158 Ill. 2d at 35, that
certification must occur in the trial court prior to making the
motion to withdraw the guilty plea ***." Janes II, 168 Ill. 2d at
389, 660 N.E.2d at 983. In Janes I, however, defense counsel did
not attempt to file the certificate in the trial court but
furnished his certificate to the State, which used the affidavit to
support its argument in Janes' first appeal to our supreme court.
Therefore, our supreme court did not have to decide whether a
certificate filed after the hearing but before the notice of appeal
could be considered harmless error or even error.
There is no question that Rule 604(d) contemplates that the
certificate be filed prior to the hearing on a postplea motion.
The certificate functions to provide a basis upon which the trial
court can determine that the attorney has, in fact, performed his
duties under the rule, and it also gives the record a clear indica-
tion of the extent of such performance, which otherwise might not
adequately appear thereon. Dean, 61 Ill. App. 3d at 615, 378
N.E.2d at 251. It takes but a moment of the trial court's time to
obtain the certificate, if the certificate has not been filed prior
to the postplea hearing, to obtain one from an attorney who is then
presently before it, thereby protecting the full measure of
defendant's interests. Any dispute involving the accuracy of the
facts stated in the attorney's certificate could be resolved and
redressed by the trial court. Dean, 61 Ill. App. 3d at 617, 378
N.E.2d at 252; see People v. Ritchie, 258 Ill. App. 3d 164, 630
N.E.2d 171 (1994) (appellate court remanded for a new hearing and
a new certificate, because the certificate filed in the trial court
was incomplete).
In the case at bar, defendant does not attempt to argue how
the proceedings would have been different if the certificate had
been filed prior to the hearing on the motion to reduce sentence,
does not attempt to argue that the full measure of his interests
was not protected, and does not attempt to argue that the certifi-
cate does not comply with Rule 604(d). Nothing in the record on
appeal suggests that the assistant public defender did not do what
she certified that she had done. Compliance with the rule has been
met. Based on the record on appeal, this court concludes that if
any error occurred in this cause, such error was harmless. While
Rule 604(d) requires strict compliance (People v. Janes, 158 Ill.
2d 27, 630 N.E.2d 790 (1994)), a literal reading of the rule does
not require that the certificate be filed prior to the postplea
hearing. While the rule contemplates the certificate being filed
after sentence is imposed, in People v. Sawyer, 258 Ill. App. 3d
174, 630 N.E.2d 1294 (1994), the judgment was affirmed where the
certificate and motion to withdraw guilty plea were filed prior to
sentencing and only a motion to withdraw guilty plea was filed
after sentencing.
Defendant's last contention concerns the assistant public
defender's Rule 604(d) certificate. The certificate states in
pertinent part, "[D]efendant offers no amendments to the Motion to
Reconsider/Reduce Sentence". Rule 604(d) states, "[D]efendant's
attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate stating that
the attorney *** has made any amendments to the motion necessary
for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings."
134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d). In the case at bar, the assistant public
defender is defendant's representative. Neither counsel nor
defendant had any amendments to the July 11, 1995, motion to reduce
sentence. The certificate merely acknowledges the right of review
by defendant and the fact that defendant had no amendments to make.
Clearly, there has been strict compliance with Rule 604(d).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court
is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GOLDENHERSH and MAAG, JJ., concur.
___________________________________________________________________________
v. ) Nos. 93-CF-342 & 93-CF-254
___________________________________________________________________________
Opinion Filed: November 21, 1996
___________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable Terrence J. Hopkins, P.J.
Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J., and
Honorable Gordon E. Maag, J.,
Concur
___________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Daniel M. Kirwan, Deputy Defender, Dan W. Evers, Assistant
for Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Fifth
Appellant Judicial District, Route 15 East, P.O. Box 2430, Mt.
Vernon, IL 62864
___________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Hon. Robert Haida, State's Attorney, St. Clair County,
for 10 Public Square, Belleville, IL 62220
Appellee
Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy
Director, Gerry R. Arnold, Staff Attorney, Office of the
State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Route 15 East,
P.O. Box 2249, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
___________________________________________________________________________