{
  "id": 5384583,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1994-02-02",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 3-93-0121, 3-93-0130; 3-93-0132 cons.",
  "first_page": "618",
  "last_page": "620",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ill. App. 3d 618"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "616 N.E.2d 647",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 Ill. App. 3d 564",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5386515
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/246/0564-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "566 N.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 3d 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2554275
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/207/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "572 N.E.2d 437",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 855",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2605169
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/213/0855-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        780262
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/158/0027-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3742,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.696,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32678739185180294
    },
    "sha256": "2de8d79f46f7a4c6e949b91cef99e455249827a3b8ac960b0ef297d8ddf3c07e",
    "simhash": "1:a046621f77c22ea6",
    "word_count": 633
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:51.292435+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McCUSKEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, David Morris, appeals from the denial of his motion to reconsider his sentences. The sentences were imposed after the defendant pleaded guilty to seven offenses. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the cause should be remanded for further proceedings regarding the defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider his sentences because his trial counsel did not file a certificate as required by Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (Rule 604(d)) (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d) (amended April 1, 1992, effective August 1, 1992)). Based upon our supreme court\u2019s decision in People v. Janes (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 27, we remand the cause for further post-plea proceedings.\nThe defendant was charged in three separate cases with the offense of robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 18 \u2014 1(a)) and two armed robbery offenses (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 18 \u2014 2(a)). In another separate case, the defendant was charged with an additional four counts of armed robbery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 18\u2014 2(a)). The defendant pleaded guilty to all of the offenses charged. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the State agreed to recommend a maximum sentence of 20 years\u2019 imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to a term of 7 years\u2019 imprisonment for robbery and a term of 10 years\u2019 imprisonment for each of the six armed robbery offenses. Two of the 10-year sentences were to be served consecutively.\nThe defendant filed a timely motion to reconsider the sentences imposed by the trial court. The defendant\u2019s trial counsel did not file a certificate with the motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d). The trial court denied the motion to reconsider the defendant\u2019s sentences, and the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in each separate case. The four cases have been consolidated on appeal.\nThe defendant contends that this cause must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding his motion to reconsider the sentences. The defendant argues that remand is necessary because his trial counsel failed to file a certificate as required by Rule 604(d). The defendant relies upon People v. Reed (1991), 213 Ill. App. 3d 855, 572 N.E.2d 437, and People v. Vickery (1991), 207 Ill. App. 3d 574, 566 N.E.2d 495. The State, relying upon People v. Gilson (1993), 246 Ill. App. 3d 564, 616 N.E.2d 647, contends that the proper remedy is \"dismissal of the appeal.\nIn People v. Janes (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 27, our supreme court recently addressed this very issue. The Janes court specifically held that \"the remedy for failure to strictly comply with each of the provisions of Rule 604(d) is a remand to the circuit court for the filing of a new motion to withdraw guilty plea or to reconsider sentence and a new hearing on the motion.\u201d Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33.\nIn light of Janes, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court which denied the defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider his sentences. For the reasons indicated above, we remand this cause to the circuit court of Peoria County to allow the defendant to file a new motion to reconsider his sentences in compliance with Rule 604(d) and for a hearing on his motion.\nReversed and remanded.\nSLATER, P.J., and BARRY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McCUSKEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "' Verlin R. Meinz, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Kevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNos. 3 \u2014 93\u20140121, 3 \u2014 93\u20140130 through 3 \u2014 93\u20140132 cons.\nOpinion filed February 2, 1994.\n' Verlin R. Meinz, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nKevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (John X. Breslin and Rita Kennedy Mertel, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0618-01",
  "first_page_order": 640,
  "last_page_order": 642
}