People v. Strehlow

2025 IL App (4th) 241354-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 4-24-1354
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2025 IL App (4th) 241354-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-24-1354 June 13, 2025 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1).

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Whiteside County DOUGLAS M. STREHLOW, ) No. 18CF164 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Patricia A. Senneff, ) Judge Presiding.

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

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defense counsel did not strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), so the trial court’s order denying defendant’s postplea motions is vacated and the matter is remanded so that counsel may comply with the rule.

¶2 Defendant Douglas M. Strehlow pleaded guilty to aggravated driving under the

influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1) (West 2016)) and was sentenced to eight

years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s counsel filed a motion to reconsider the sentence but did not

file a certificate pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). The trial court

denied defendant’s motion to reconsider. Defendant appealed, and this court allowed his agreed

motion for summary remand to the trial court for strict compliance with Rule 604(d). People v.

Strehlow, No. 4-24-0244 (May 20, 2024).

¶3 On remand, defense counsel filed motions to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea and

to reconsider his sentence, along with a Rule 604(d) certificate. Following a hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motions, and defendant again appealed. In this appeal, defendant argues this

case must be remanded again because his counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d), and

the State agrees. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the denial of defendant’s motions to

withdraw his guilty plea and to reconsider his sentence and remand for further proceedings.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 In June 2018, defendant was charged by information with two counts of aggravated

DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2016)). The charges arose from an August 2017

motor vehicle collision which resulted in the death of Summer Harmon.

¶6 In September 2021, the trial court conducted a conference pursuant to Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 402 (eff. July 1, 2012). After defendant was admonished under the rule and

advised the court may make a recommendation on an appropriate sentence at the end of the

conference, the judge stated she would “go back into chambers with the attorneys. They will tell

me what they would like me to know and then I will probably make a recommendation.” Defendant

was advised of his next court date and allowed to leave. The record does not contain a transcript

of the Rule 402 conference held in chambers.

¶7 In November 2022, defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated DUI charge

contained in count I of the information in exchange for dismissal of count II of the information.

The parties had no agreement as to the sentence.

¶8 Following a September 2023 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced

defendant to eight years in prison. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, claiming it

was excessive given the circumstances. Defense counsel, however, did not file a certificate in

compliance with Rule 604(d). The court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence and

defendant appealed. In May 2024, this court entered an order allowing defendant’s motion for

-2- summary remand to the trial court for strict compliance with Rule 604(d). People v. Strehlow, No.

4-24-0244 (May 20, 2024).

¶9 On remand, defendant refiled his motion to reconsider his sentence as excessive.

Defendant also filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which included the same allegations as

his motion to reconsider his sentence, but, at the end of the motion, added “[i]n light of the

foregoing and the cause’s record, Defendant’s plea was entered due to a misapprehension of the

facts or law” and “the ends of Justice will be served by holding a trial.” Defendant’s counsel filed

a Rule 604(d) certificate. In pertinent part, counsel certified he had “made any amendments to the

motion necessary for the adequate presentation of any defects in [the] proceedings.”

¶ 10 At the September 2024 hearing on the motions, defense counsel called defendant

to testify and asked why defendant believed he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

When defendant attempted to recount a conversation he had with counsel about the Rule 402

conference, the trial court stated:

“I’m not going to listen to anything regarding [the] 402 conference.

Everybody in here knows that 402 conferences are not binding on the court.

They are simply advisory opinions given by the court.

I do not record those so that I will not be prejudiced in the future if in fact I

have to sentence someone ***, and those are private conversations for a reason.

So, I’m not going to listen to any testimony about any 402 conference.”

¶ 11 Defendant then testified that the medications he was taking at the time of his guilty

plea “possibly” affected his judgment. Defendant testified, “I can’t really say what my judgment

is on a lot of things when I’m on the medication.” The State objected to this line of questioning as

beyond the scope of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court stated, “This

-3- is the very first that any of us are hearing of this,” and agreed that defendant’s motion failed to

include allegations about the effects of his medication. The court nonetheless gave counsel “some

latitude” to question defendant about this issue. In response to counsel’s questioning, defendant

then testified about the medications he was taking at the time of his guilty plea and their effects on

his judgment.

¶ 12 In his argument, defendant contended his guilty plea was not knowing and

voluntary “because of external factors, his injuries and the medications.” Following arguments,

the trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion to reconsider

his sentence.

¶ 13 This appeal followed.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 Defendant contends the record shows his postplea counsel failed to strictly comply

with Rule 604(d) on remand, despite filing a facially valid Rule 604(d) certificate. Defendant

argues his motion to withdraw his guilty plea did not include the claim raised for the first time at

the hearing, i.e., his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to the effects of his

medications. Counsel also failed to attach an affidavit or documentation to support his claim.

Accordingly, defendant maintains the record refutes counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate asserting

counsel made any amendment to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of defendant’s

claims and this case must be remanded again for strict compliance with the rule. In the alternative,

defendant contends this court should remand for resentencing because his eight-year sentence was

excessive.

¶ 16 The State agrees that defense counsel failed to make necessary amendments to the

motion and to provide evidentiary support for defendant’s claim, as required by Rule 604(d). The

-4- State, therefore, concedes a remand for strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required in this case.

We accept the State’s concession.

¶ 17 “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. The rule

requires postplea motions to be in writing and to be supported by an affidavit when the defendant’s

claim is based on facts that do not appear in the record. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). The

rule also provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“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.” Id.

¶ 18 Defense counsel must strictly comply with the certification requirement of Rule

604(d). People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 35 (1994). The remedy for failure to strictly comply with

Rule 604(d) is a remand to the trial court for strict compliance. Id. at 33. Even when counsel files

a facially compliant Rule 604(d) certificate, courts may review the record to determine whether

counsel actually fulfilled the obligations outlined in the rule. People v. Gray, 2023 IL App (4th)

230076, ¶ 30; People v. Curtis, 2021 IL App (4th) 190658, ¶ 37 (“[A] facially valid Rule 604(d)

certificate may be refuted by the record.”). We review counsel’s compliance with Rule 604(d)

de novo. Gray, 2023 IL App (4th) 230076, ¶ 30.

¶ 19 In this case, the record refutes defense counsel’s facially valid Rule 604(d)

-5- certificate. Although counsel certified he “made any amendments to the motion necessary for the

adequate presentation of any defects in [the] proceedings,” the motion to withdraw defendant’s

guilty plea did not include any allegation that the plea was involuntary due to the effects of

defendant’s medications. At the motion hearing, however, the focus of the testimony and counsel’s

argument was the claim that defendant’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his

medications affected his ability to understand the proceedings. The State promptly objected to

counsel’s attempt to raise this issue because it was not alleged in his motion. In response, the trial

court stated, “This is the very first that any of us are hearing of this,” and agreed this claim was

not included in defendant’s motion.

¶ 20 Contrary to counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate, the record clearly shows he failed to

make “amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in [the]

proceedings.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Additionally, counsel did not provide an

affidavit or other evidentiary support for defendant’s claim that his medications affected his ability

to enter a knowing and voluntary guilty plea, as required by Rule 604(d). When the record refutes

counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate, remand to the trial court is required for strict compliance with

the rule. See People v. Winston, 2020 IL App (2d) 180289, ¶ 18 (stating, despite counsel’s facially

valid Rule 604(d) certificate, “we fail to see how counsel could raise a new claim at the hearing

and yet deem it unnecessary to amend the motion to include that claim”); People v. Bridges, 2017

IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 9 (stating counsel’s certification that she made any necessary amendments

to defendant’s motion was refuted because counsel failed to attach an affidavit substantiating new

allegations in the motion that were not supported by the record).

¶ 21 In sum, we conclude that the record refutes defense counsel’s Rule 604(d)

certification that he “made any amendments to the motion necessary for the adequate presentation

-6- of any defects” in the guilty plea proceedings. Accordingly, we vacate the denial of defendant’s

motions and remand to the trial court for (1) the opportunity to file new motions, if counsel

concludes new motions are necessary, (2) the filing of a valid Rule 604(d) certificate, and (3) a

new motion hearing. See People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522, 531 (2011); Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff.

July 1, 2017). Given our decision that remand is necessary for further postplea proceedings, we do

not reach defendant’s alternative claim that his sentence was excessive.

¶ 22 Finally, we note that the trial court did not allow defendant to testify about the Rule

402 conference at the motion hearing, stating the conference was not recorded and “those are

private conversations.” We understand the court’s reluctance to permit a defendant from arguing

that some binding commitment had been made by the court at the Rule 402 conference, but the

record here suggests that defendant was attempting to give testimony concerning his interactions

with his own attorney. As this court has explained, “[n]othing in Rule 402 prohibits a trial court

from making a record of what was said at a Rule 402 conference, and such a record might address

some of the problems that arise from Rule 402 conferences.” People v. Higgins, 2023 IL App (4th)

220837, ¶ 76. Judicial proceedings are intended to be transparent whenever feasible, particularly

in the criminal justice system. Id. ¶¶ 89-91. Accordingly, the trial court should take note of the

discussion in Higgins when conducting the hearing on remand. See id. ¶¶ 73-93. In particular,

defendant should be allowed to make a record of what was said at the Rule 402 conference if it is

relevant to the issues raised in his postplea motions.

¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 24 For the reasons stated, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further

proceedings.

¶ 25 Order vacated; cause remanded with directions.

-7-