{ "id": 4305114, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES MORTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Morton", "decision_date": "2010-09-22", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201408\u20140660", "first_page": "294", "last_page": "296", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "404 Ill. App. 3d 294" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "931 N.E.2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "397 Ill. App. 3d 1084", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4293708 ], "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/397/1084-01" ] }, { "cite": "699 N.E.2d 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1073562 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/298/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "671 N.E.2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "372" }, { "page": "372" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 Ill. App. 3d 867", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 182775 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "872" }, { "page": "872" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/283/0867-01" ] }, { "cite": "896 N.E.2d 1062", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1066" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "385 Ill. App. 3d 736", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4279940 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/385/0736-01" ] }, { "cite": "659 N.E.2d 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "438" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 Ill. App. 3d 929", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 927623 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "932" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/276/0929-01" ] }, { "cite": "630 N.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "792" }, { "page": "793-94" }, { "page": "794" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 780262 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33" }, { "page": "35-36" }, { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/158/0027-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 336, "char_count": 6660, "ocr_confidence": 0.787, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1449397242850838 }, "sha256": "8c62bcdee622ffc87f3ef9573553214ae16b518836b1ae1de226d53dd2716079", "simhash": "1:606a5d697b2f8d94", "word_count": 1138 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:54.131587+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. JAMES MORTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE DONOVAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nJames Morton, Jr., defendant, pled guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault and was sentenced by the circuit court of Clinton County to 24 years\u2019 imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, but counsel did not file a certificate of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (210 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)). The State agrees that a remand for the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate is required. The State also contends that defense counsel does not necessarily have to file a new motion to reduce the sentence. We agree.\nThe question presented here arises from differing interpretations of the remand language found in People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 630 N.E.2d 790 (1994). In Janes, the defendant pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to death. The defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but counsel did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate. The trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion. In reversing the circuit court, the supreme court stated as follows:\n\u201c[T]he 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, 630 N.E.2d at 792.\nThe Janes court remanded the cause to the circuit court \u201cto allow defendant to file a new motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a hearing on that motion in full compliance with Rule 604(d).\u201d Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 35-36, 630 N.E.2d at 793-94.\nIn People v. Oliver, 276 Ill. App. 3d 929, 659 N.E.2d 435 (1995), the Second District vacated the circuit court\u2019s denial of the defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw her guilty plea because trial counsel had failed to file a Rule 604(d) certificate, and the court remanded the cause for further proceedings. On remand, trial counsel filed the required certificate and elected to stand on the original motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The State stipulated that the testimony would be the same as at the prior hearing. The trial court again denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant argued that the perfunctory proceedings which occurred in the trial court after the remand did not comply with the appellate court\u2019s mandate to hold a new hearing. The appellate court agreed, holding that Janes required both a new motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a new hearing thereon. Oliver, 276 Ill. App. 3d at 932, 659 N.E.2d at 438. The Second District essentially reaffirmed this position in People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736, 896 N.E.2d 1062 (2008), wherein it reversed the trial court\u2019s denial of the defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and remanded the cause \u201cfor defendant\u2019s attorney to file a new motion under Rule 604(d) and otherwise to comply fully with the requirements of that rule.\u201d Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d at 739, 896 N.E.2d at 1066.\nThe Fourth District in People v. Kerkering, 283 Ill. App. 3d 867, 671 N.E.2d 368 (1996), disagreed with the analysis in Oliver. The Fourth District first vacated the trial court\u2019s order denying the defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider his sentence and remanded the cause because trial counsel had failed to file a Rule 604(d) certificate. On remand, defense counsel filed the certificate but did not file a new motion to withdraw the plea. Following a new hearing on the original motion to reconsider the sentence, the trial court again denied the motion. Citing Oliver, the defendant argued on appeal that Janes required counsel to file both a certificate and a new Rule 604(d) motion. The Fourth District, disagreeing with the Second District\u2019s interpretation of Janes, rejected the defendant\u2019s argument and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The court noted that while in one part of the Janes opinion, the supreme court used language suggesting that the filing of a new Rule 604(d) motion was mandatory, the supreme court also used permissive language when it remanded the cause to the circuit court \u201c \u2018to allow defendant to file a new motion to withdraw his guilty plea.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis in original.) Kerkering, 283 Ill. App. 3d at 872, 671 N.E.2d at 372, quoting Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 36, 630 N.E.2d at 794. The Fourth District reaffirmed this position in People v. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d 630, 699 N.E.2d 591 (1998).\nWe agree with the Fourth District\u2019s interpretation of Janes. As stated in Kerkering:\n\u201cWe believe a reading of Janes that makes the filing of a new Rule 604(d) motion permissive rather than mandatory is more logical and better suits the goal of judicial economy. Therefore, we hold that when a case is remanded for the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate, the attorney need only file a new motion to reconsider sentence or to withdraw guilty plea if he or she determines that such action is \u2018necessary for [the] adequate presentation of any defects\u2019 (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) in the guilty plea or sentencing proceedings. Thereafter, the trial court must conduct a new hearing on the motion. In this case, defendant\u2019s trial attorney apparently did not believe that any amendments were necessary. The trial court conducted a new hearing. Accordingly, this case need not be remanded.\u201d Kerkering, 283 Ill. App. 3d at 872, 671 N.E.2d at 372.\nWe also recognize that there are circumstances when the appellate court, after reviewing the record, may decide that the filing of a new Rule 604(d) motion is required to adequately represent the defendant. See People v. Cloyd, 397 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 931 N.E.2d 261 (2010). This is not one of those instances. We, therefore, will leave it up to defense counsel to determine whether a new motion to reduce the sentence should be filed to adequately present defendant\u2019s objections to his sentence.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions that defendant be allowed to file a new motion to reconsider sentence, if he so chooses, that a new hearing on the motion be held, and that strict compliance with Rule 604(d) in filing a certificate under the rule be followed.\nReversed; cause remanded with directions.\nCHAPMAN and SPOMER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE DONOVAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael J. Pelletier, Johannah B. Weber, and Dan W Evers, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "John Hudspeth, State\u2019s Attorney, of Carlyle (Patrick Delfino, Stephen E. Norris, and Kevin D. Sweeney, all 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. JAMES MORTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201408\u20140660\nOpinion filed September 22, 2010.\nMichael J. Pelletier, Johannah B. Weber, and Dan W Evers, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nJohn Hudspeth, State\u2019s Attorney, of Carlyle (Patrick Delfino, Stephen E. Norris, and Kevin D. Sweeney, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0294-01", "first_page_order": 310, "last_page_order": 312 }