{ "id": 4268536, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD DANIEL GRICE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Grice", "decision_date": "2007-03-06", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201406\u20140096", "first_page": "813", "last_page": "817", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 813" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "829 N.E.2d 426", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 Ill. App. 3d 887", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4135618 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "890-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/357/0887-01" ] }, { "cite": "823 N.E.2d 1131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1133" }, { "page": "1134" }, { "page": "1134" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 Ill. App. 3d 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3598976 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608" }, { "page": "610" }, { "page": "609" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/355/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "800 N.E.2d 1239", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1242" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 Ill. App. 3d 766", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3778067 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "769" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/344/0766-01" ] }, { "cite": "630 N.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "792" }, { "page": "792" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 780262 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33" }, { "page": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/158/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 Ill. 2d 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3606929 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87", "parenthetical": "modified on denial of rehearing January 22, 2007" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/224/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "843 N.E.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 Ill. App. 3d 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5765225 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/363/0356-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 436, "char_count": 9663, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7548786193461347e-07, "percentile": 0.7090571689700829 }, "sha256": "6be20edaf1fb80b8b886b5beb84aefcdfa576bba06045e0b808ad2e13665fc48", "simhash": "1:012ce5057d0b1f60", "word_count": 1591 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.954096+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. RICHARD DANIEL GRICE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn September 2004, defendant, Richard Daniel Grice, pleaded guilty to criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 13(a)(2) (West 2004)), and in November 2004, the trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison. Later in November 2004, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence. At a January 2006 hearing on that motion, defense counsel filed a certificate purportedly in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider his sentence.\nDefendant appeals, arguing that because defense counsel\u2019s certificate failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), this case should be remanded to the trial court for (1) the filing of a new postplea motion, (2) a new hearing on defendant\u2019s postplea motion, and (3) strict compliance with Rule 604(d)\u2019s requirements. We agree and reverse and remand for further proceedings.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn July 2004, the State charged defendant with two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 14.1(a)(1) (West 2004)). At a September 2004 hearing, the information was amended to charge one count of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 13(a)(2) (West 2004)), and the State moved to dismiss the charge of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/12\u2014 14.1(a)(1) (West 2004)). Defendant then entered an open plea of guilty to criminal sexual assault, and the court granted the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the other charge.\nFollowing a November 2004 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison. Later in November 2004, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence.\nAt the January 2006 hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider sentence, defense counsel filed a certificate purportedly in compliance with Rule 604(d). The certificate provided, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201c1. I was appointed to represent [d]efendant on this charge and represented him through the guilty[-]plea and sentencing phase.\n2.1 have reviewed the transcript of proceedings of the sentencing hearing, as well as the [c]ourt file.\n3. I have communicated with [d]efendant in writing to ascertain in more detail his grounds for errors.\n4. I drafted the original motion after consulting with defendant following the sentencing hearing and I have made any amendments necessary for adequate presentation of any defects alleged in these proceedings.\u201d\nAt the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider sentence.\nThis appeal followed.\nII. COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULE 604(d)\nDefendant argues that because defense counsel\u2019s certificate did not comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), this case should be remanded to the trial court for (1) the filing of a new postplea motion, (2) a new hearing on defendant\u2019s postplea motion, and (3) strict compliance with Rule 604(d)\u2019s requirements. We agree.\nRule 604(d), which addresses procedures to be followed when a defendant (after pleading guilty) files either a motion to reconsider the sentence or to withdraw the guilty plea, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201cThe defendant\u2019s 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 defendant\u2019s 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.\u201d 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).\nThe question of whether defense counsel complied with Rule 604(d) is subject to de novo review. People v. Johnson, 363 Ill. App. 3d 356, 359, 843 N.E.2d 434, 437 (2006). When ascertaining whether compliance has occurred, we are mindful that supreme court rules \u201care not suggestions; rather, they have the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written.\u201d People v. Campbell, 224 Ill. 2d 80, 87 (2006) (modified on denial of rehearing January 22, 2007). The failure to strictly comply with each of the provisions of Rule 604(d) requires \u201cremand 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 People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 33, 630 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1994).\nHere, defense counsel\u2019s purported Rule 604(d) certificate failed to state that counsel had reviewed the guilty-plea proceedings. Accordingly, that certificate failed to comply with one of Rule 604(d)\u2019s requirements, and we conclude that reversal and remand are required.\nIn so concluding, we recognize that in People v. Starks, 344 Ill. App. 3d 766, 769, 800 N.E.2d 1239, 1242 (2003), this court held that where the record demonstrates that the purpose of Rule 604(d) has been satisfied, remand is not required. However, in light of the Second District\u2019s decision in People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606, 823 N.E.2d 1131 (2005), and this court\u2019s decision in People v. Pressey, 357 Ill. App. 3d 887, 829 N.E.2d 426 (2005), we decline to follow Starks.\nIn Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 608, 823 N.E.2d at 1133, defense counsel\u2019s Rule 604(d) certificate failed to strictly comply with that rule in that it failed to state that counsel had made amendments to the motion that were necessary for the adequate presentation of any defects in proceedings. In remanding for compliance with Rule 604(d), the Second District noted that strict compliance with the rule eliminates unnecessary appeals and any controversy that might arise regarding whether the record shows substantial compliance. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 610, 823 N.E.2d at 1134. The Second District further explained as follows:\n\u201c[A] waste of judicial resources occurs when, as a result of an attorney\u2019s deficient certificate, an appellate court must scour through the record to determine whether that attorney actually complied with Rule 604(d), even though strict compliance with that rule\u2019s certification requirements would prevent such waste.\u201d Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d at 609, 823 N.E.2d at 1134.\nIn Pressey, defense counsel\u2019s certificate failed to state that counsel had examined the record of the guilty-plea proceedings. Citing the supreme court\u2019s decision in Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33, 630 N.E.2d at 792, this court held that strict compliance with Rule 604(d) was required and remanded for further proceedings. Pressey, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 890-91, 829 N.E.2d at 430. We agree with the Second District\u2019s analysis in Dismuke and adhere to our holding in Pressey.\nAccordingly, we explicitly decline the State\u2019s invitation to examine the record to determine whether defense counsel\u2019s conduct satisfied Rule 604(d)\u2019s requirements. By promulgating Rule 604(d), the Supreme Court of Illinois has already determined the required content of the certificate, and it is the duty of this court \u2014 and the trial courts \u2014 to ensure that this supreme court mandate is followed. Thus, in this case and henceforth, the certificate itself is all that this court will consider to determine compliance with Rule 604(d).\nAlthough the responsibility for drafting a proper Rule 604(d) certificate lies initially with defense counsel, trial courts can, and should, play an important role in preventing the waste of judicial resources that occurs when we must address on appeal the validity of a Rule 604(d) certificate. Trial courts possess the power \u2014 and the duty \u2014 to examine any Rule 604(d) certificate when filed to determine whether it complies with that rule. Trial courts should reject those certificates that do not comply, and when doing so, instruct counsel to file another certificate in accordance with all of the requirements of Rule 604(d). If trial courts follow these suggestions, the terrible waste of judicial resources that now occurs, as here, due to defective Rule 604(d) certificates should cease.\nBecause Rule 604(d) is lengthy, we set forth the following key aspects of that rule with which defense counsel must comply. We do so to facilitate a trial court\u2019s scrutiny of any purported Rule 604(d) certificate it receives. Such a certificate must contain each of the following:\n(1) A statement that the attorney has consulted with the defendant, either by mail or in person, to ascertain defendant\u2019s contentions of error in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty.\n(2) A statement that the attorney has examined the trial court file.\n(3) A statement that the attorney has examined the report of proceedings of the plea of guilty.\n(4) A statement that the attorney has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court\u2019s judgment and remand for (1) the filing of a new postplea motion (if defendant so wishes), (2) a new hearing on defendant\u2019s postplea motion, and (3) strict compliance with Rule 604(d)\u2019s requirements.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nAPPLETON and McCULLOUGH, JJ, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas and Gary R. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Matthew L. Sullivan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Paris (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, 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. RICHARD DANIEL GRICE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201406\u20140096\nArgued February 15, 2007.\nOpinion filed March 6, 2007.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Gary R. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nMatthew L. Sullivan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Paris (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0813-01", "first_page_order": 831, "last_page_order": 835 }