mcleish i'm here with their donor attorney general's office representing the people of the state of illinois there's only one reading several six or forty's consultation cause that is consistent with both the language and the purpose of  of counsel before any motion was filed and in all cases whether defendant has indicated that he or she wants to challenge anything instead the rule does not call the rule six or fourteen as it's written and not read any extra requirements just because they may be a good idea the drafters are the ones that decide whether these additional protections are a good idea they at an ethical obligation to ascertain defendant's contentions bearing both of those things if defendant has filed a pro se motion challenging only the sentence or only guilty plea the council is required i would i would concede perhaps that it's given might it might have more weight here if defendant was arguing only that counsel must consult with defendant about in all cases but that's not the only thing that defendants reading would imply defense really would also imply that even when the defendant is challenging just the guilty plea counsel must consult with depending about contentions a bear in a sentence and that it seems counter to this court's reasoning if it's given the court's reasoning if it's given the court holding if it's given was that counsel read not review the transcripts of the sentencing proceeding this even when defendant is challenged on his sentence so the beast it would be curious indeed if counsel never had a chance to review the sentencing transcripts but when negotiated plea and now under adams is seeking to withdraw that plea it would be silly for counsel to say oh by the way do you have any contentions of air in the sentence because it doesn't matter defendant can't challenge the sentence his only recourse is to move to a tropical  or don't disagree on much you know we do agree that the golden rule six of fourteen is to streamline the entire process of adjudicating claims involving guilty pleas the entire idea was to reduce the volume of appeals from guilty pleas  and we also agree that the rule is is supposed to assure that the system operates as is intended to operate and i think we also get agree that there is only one reading that i consistent with the purpose of the rule what we disagree on is what that reading is and i think the words of the rule six zero four d guide what the interpretation should be and i think what's important  here is that the word the very end of the rule talks about counsel is supposed to identify any defects in the proceedings and present those it kills it was supposed to just limit him or herself to the claims made known by the defendant the rule would have said that in fact rule six fifty one c which is the rule that applies to post conviction case it says exactly that or rules expect the one see what counsel is supposed to do is consult with the client read the relevant documents and present the defendant's claims rule six zero four he does not say that rule six zero four d d requires counsel to consult with his or her client read the transcript of the guilty plea and present defects in the proceedings what that suggests is that counsel is not at all limited by what his client or her client tells them they supposed to be raising the whole purpose of the consultation clause is to get feedback from the client in the first instance what do you think the problems in the case were now in this particular instance we're talking about an open ple to that if he has a problem with the police he can litigate that and the only way we know that that that consultation has occurred is the consultation clause is complied with and the consultation clause says that counsel  well that's the problem we don't know that because the certificate in this case does not comply with the consultation clause we have no idea if counsel conferred with the line of certificates consulted with the word or is really giving too much significance in in the rule it doesn't mean and necessarily although if you really wanted to clear this up this court could amend the rule to just put and instead of work but i think what the rule is trying to communicate is you're supposed to consult with your client about any contentions of error the client may have either the plea or the sentence but i don't think it means one or the other i think you have to ask about both but whether or not they're presented is what drives the motion and that the state's position really does to use the metaphor for people being jordan which was decided at after i filed a brief in this case and i'll talk a little more about that is putting the client does not want to make any contentions appear in the plea he doesn't have to in the context of an open plea so we can be assured under rule six zero forty that the client has at least aired any contention out decides were later has a contention to bear in the plea it's not going to be way because we don't know from this record whether or not he was ever able to air that grievance because   i think people beat that's given talks about exactly that if you were required to read the plea of guilty even if only errors in the sentence are being litigated that says something about what counsel was supposed to be doing and requiring counsel to read the transcript from the plea of guilty what that says is that counsel is supposed to be looking for constitutional defects because a clear guilty is where you are waiving almost all of your constitutional rights the right to jury trial you know cross examination confrontation the council needs to look at that and see if there are any constitutional defects because the rule also requires counsel to raise defects in the not just the defendant's claim so even if the client has no idea there was a defect in the proceeding counsel's going to look at the plead guilty to to see that that's been complied with and took the actual issue in fits given it was being defended there was we're trying to get the court to read something into the rule that wasn't there which is review the transcript of the sentencing now that may be good practice and it's a good idea but the rule doesn't say that and there's a reason the world doesn't say that and the reason is counsel supposed to be looking for constitutional defects defects in the proceedings so in the context of rule six of fourteen then yes counsel's got to look for things even if the client didn't tell him that because the rule is written that way she has looked at the things that the the rule requires them to look at and here we don't have that we have no idea if counsel even asked mr tusayan about the police we don't know that but what we do know is yes and i believe that is what has created the litigation and my response would be that again that we were at war in that particular clause is taken out of context and it is not you have to read the rule as a whole and you have to understand the purpose behind the rule in order to understand what that clause actually means it's being plucked out of the context of the rule and the context of the rule is councils got to look at the plea of guilty the count counts as got to consult mail and the defendant says what and what went wrong i don't like myself and here is why then there's is there any significance to that if you can think about it a little bit better in the so yeah i would say yes simply because if it's a negotiated plea even if the client only complains about the sentence because contract principles apply it's just the would be you know i i maybe agreed to the sentence but i changed my mind therefore i want to withdraw my plea it's still a consultation about the sentence you're just and it's just a different legal vehicle to get to it so i'm not sure it makes any difference at all in terms of the idea is that you've got to ask your client about defects in the proceedings a client is probably is going to use the legal ease involve before the thirty days is up to consult and draft a motion initially or if the defendant files it pro se and then counsel is appointed it doesn't matter for purposes of the consultation clause has made known to him after consultation but the point of the consultation clause is now it's got to cover the areas that need to be covered otherwise the waiver provision of rule six zero fourteen won't work and we will be back doing litigation time and time again the whole point of the rule six of four d is to prevent repetitive litigation to deal with the claims in the first instance within the thirty days of the judgment so that the appellate courts are clogged with this and so this court isn't clogged with it and we are filing c's and two fourteen zero one and on and on and on the safety valve for the first picture provision is the appointment of counsel and the assistance of counsel in presenting those claims and the only way it can work is  consults about every aspect that needs to be addressed so that waiver does not occur and i do want to address jordan because i didn't get a chance and it was decided after the apple even filed a brief but it is a a just like second district it's directly on point and i would urge this court to adopt the reasoning of that case it's an open plea the motion was drafted by counsel a bird consultation only about the sentence and the second district said that that isn't sufficient that does not give us the assurance that we need that all matters have been consulted and the argument being made in that case was the argument being made by the state here which is if it's only about the motion be consider and that's all that's in the motion then we don't have to worry about the police and the second district said no it actually quite the opposite is true we'll never know  the quiet had a complaint about the plea because this search certificate does not give us the assurance that we need that all claims are being raised as it's supposed to be in real six zero forty within thirty days of the judgement  proposed change in the rule that talks about requiring the breeding of the sentencing transcript if a motion to reconsider is filed i think there's a reason it didn't pass and that reason is that that part is also put in the conjunctive and it's going to cause more problems than we have caused so far with this or because it's got another war in there it's going to require it's going to remove the requirement of reading the transcript of the plea of guilty it's going to basically go over  it's given and there's a reason it's given came down the way it did there's a reason it's never been overruled i think it's a good long it's a good policy and this court should stick with it if the court has no other questions managements and the structure of the rule make it a defendant's obligation to raise his or her contention of the bear and that's a fine burden to place defendant is the one that chose to plead guilty in a very formal setting knowing exactly riding he was pleading guilty and the consequences there are also there's i want to go back to the other counsel absolutely has an ethical obligation to then consult with defendant about what counsels found however if the defendant chooses still not to challenge the guilty last word in the the amendments cause that council must make any amendments to the proceedings necessary to read it to identify any errors in the proceedings to make any amendments to the motion necessary to identify any errors in the and i don't see any reason to require counsel to insult about or another reason is if if if the court was going to amend the rule to say and then the court should just amend the rule to have counsel point in the first instance to make sure that there's nothing defendant wants to raise because there's nobody reason to put a defendant who challenges only the sentence in a better position with regard to the guilty plea than a defendant who has not spoken up about whether he wants to challenge any further and the the structure of the rule as a whole even beginning with the first sentence suggests back there are parallel tracks  language of the rule and says the council must consult about the subject of defendant's contentions of air and defendant wants to later say hey you know i know i only raised the sentence in emotion but i also had contention attorney doesn't do his or her job either way the p c petition is the only remedy and if the defendant is going to lie about what the attorney did either way you're going to have a p c petition one more thing about it guilty plea proceed and because there could be a whitfield they are in there and there may be other errors relevant to sentence so even if the defendant is challenging only the sentence there still value in requiring counsel to review the transcripts of the guilty plea proceedings