In consolidated proceedings involving jury convictions and pleas to multiple offenses where defendant’s counsel moved to reconsider only defendant’s sentence, the denial of the motion to reconsider the sentence was vacated and the cause was remanded to allow the filing of a valid certificate under Supreme Court Rule 604(d), an opportunity to file a new motion to withdraw the guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentence, and for a new motion hearing, since Rule 604(d) is intended to preserve defendant’s right to a direct appeal of both sentencing and pleading issues, which may be lost if not properly raised due to a failure to strictly follow Rule 604(d).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Nos. 11-CF-1857, 10- CF-2588; the Hon. John J. Kinsella, Judge, presiding.
Thomas A. Lilien and Bruce Kirkham, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Elgin, for appellant.
Robert B. Berlin, State's Attorney, of Wheaton (Lisa Anne Hoffman and Kristin M. Schwind, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Hutchinson and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 A jury convicted defendant, Jimmie R. Jordan, of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11-501(d)(1)(G) (West 2010)) and aggravated driving while his license was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303(d-1) (West 2010)). He was sentenced to concurrent 30-month probation terms (case No. 10-CF-2588). Later, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. In a separate prosecution, he was charged with aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d)(4) (West 2010)) (case No. 11-CF-1857). At a consolidated hearing, the trial court accepted defendant's admission to the probation-revocation petition and his nonnegotiated guilty plea to aggravated battery. At another hearing, defendant was resentenced to 36 months' imprisonment for each traffic offense and 42 months' imprisonment for aggravated battery, all sentences to run concurrently. The trial court admonished defendant pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). By counsel, defendant timely filed separate motions to reconsider the sentences in both cases. In case No. 11-CF-1857, his attorney filed a certificate of compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). It stated, in pertinent part:
"1. I have consulted with the Defendant in person to ascertain his contentions of error in the imposition of the sentence;
2. I have examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea; and
3. I have made such amendments to the motion necessary for an adequate presentation of any defects in the proceedings."
The trial court denied the motions. Defendant timely appealed in both case No. 10-CF-2588 (appeal No. 2-12-0108) and case No. 11-CF-1857 (appeal No. 2-12-0106). We consolidated the appeals.
¶ 2 On appeal, defendant contends that the orders denying his postjudgment motions must be vacated, and the causes remanded, because counsel's certificate did not comply strictly with Rule 604(d). We agree.
¶ 3 As pertinent here, Rule 604(d) states that counsel "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 [the] 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. July 1, 2006). Relying on People v. Dryden, 2012 IL App (2d) 110646, defendant contends that the certificate was ...