{ "id": 2641896, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENNETH SAMUELS, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Samuels", "decision_date": "1976-07-27", "docket_number": "No. 75-481", "first_page": "642", "last_page": "644", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 642" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "276 N.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2912571 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/50/0031-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 269, "char_count": 4004, "ocr_confidence": 0.875, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.126779768279073e-07, "percentile": 0.9669395783306285 }, "sha256": "1db3ce3b46f0dfe9a5a148210fbd4ff01bae90977a4b3f11daf9d66ec85173d3", "simhash": "1:e1a63e2d710bac12", "word_count": 668 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:19.600233+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. KENNETH SAMUELS, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE KARNS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant-appellant Kenneth Samuels was convicted of aggravated battery upon his plea of guilty in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County on June 11, 1975. On July 23, 1975, defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a term of three to nine years. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 604(d)), defendant filed a timely motion to withdraw the plea of guilty alleging that the sentence was excessive and that the court erred in failing to determine defendant\u2019s fitness to stand trial. Although a hearing was held on the motion to withdraw, no transcript was made of the hearing, apparently at the request of defense counsel. After the hearing the court denied the motion.\nOn appeal defendant contends that fundamental fairness requires that he be allowed to withdraw the plea of guilty because of his youth, mental deficiency and protestations of innocence. Defendant also contends that the sentence is excessive. Although defendant did not raise the first issue in his motion to withdraw the guilty plea and may therefore have waived it under Rule 604(d), we need not reach the issues raised because of our belief that the trial court and defense counsel failed to comply with the procedures set forth in Rule 604(d).\nRule 604(d) provides in part, \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 his contentions of error in 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 presentation of any defects in those proceedings.\u201d No such certificate appears of record in the instant case.\nThe quoted portion of the rule is analogous to Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (111. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 651(c)) involving petitions filed under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 122 \u2014 1 et seq.) We note, however, that Rule 651(c) states that \u201cthe record 0 # \u201d shall contain a showing, which may be made by the certificate of petitioner\u2019s attorney\u201d that the attorney has consulted with the defendant, reviewed the record and has made any necessary amendments. The language in Rule 604(d) is stronger and appears to offer no alternative to the filing of the certificate. The Supreme Court, in cases involving Rule 651(c), has held that filing of the certificate during the pendency of the appeal satisfies the rule. People v. Harris, 50 Ill. 2d 31, 276 N.E.2d 327 (1971).\nIn the instant case, however, we have no indication of what steps were taken by appointed counsel or what transpired at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.\nConsidering the seriousness of the offense and defendant\u2019s low intellectual development, we believe that the cause should be remanded to the trial court for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw. At this hearing, defendant will be allowed to amend the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty to allege any appropriate matters not contained in the original motion and appointed counsel will be directed to comply in all respects with Rule 604(d).\nThe order of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County denying defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw the plea of guilty is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nJONES and EBERSPACHER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE KARNS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stephen P. Hurley, of Mt. Vernon, and Theodore A. Gottfried, of Springfield, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, for appellant.", "Robert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Robert L. Craig, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENNETH SAMUELS, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 75-481\nOpinion filed July 27, 1976.\nRehearing denied November 3, 1976.\nStephen P. Hurley, of Mt. Vernon, and Theodore A. Gottfried, of Springfield, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, for appellant.\nRobert H. Rice, State\u2019s Attorney, of Belleville (Robert L. Craig, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0642-01", "first_page_order": 672, "last_page_order": 674 }