2024 IL App (1st) 22-0981 

Order filed: February 1, 2024 

FIRST DISTRICT

FOURTH DIVISION

No. 1-22-0981 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Martin and Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We vacated the order of the circuit court denying defendant’s motion to withdraw 

his negotiated pleas and remanded this matter, where the record demonstrated postplea counsel did not strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d).

¶ 2 Defendant-appellant, LB Joseph,

1 appeals from the denial of his pro se motion to withdraw 

his negotiated guilty pleas after a remand. People v. Joseph, No. 1-17-3124 (2019) (agreed 

summary disposition order). Defendant argues that his post-plea counsel failed to amend his pro 

se motion to include a claim for ineffectiveness of counsel and as a result failed to strictly comply 

with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). We vacate the order of the circuit 

1 The record includes various spellings of defendant’s first name (Lb; L.B.; and LB). Defendant 

testified that his “original name is Linden B” but it was abbreviated to LB. The notice of appeal uses “LB.” 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LB JOSEPH, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

of Cook County.

Nos. 14 CR 19078 (02) 

16 CR 16846

Honorable 

Michael R. Clancy, 

Judge, presiding. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)
No. 1-22-0981 

- 2 -

court denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas and remand for strict compliance with 

Rule 604(d) and a new proceeding on the motion to withdraw. 

¶ 3 In 2014, defendant and co-defendant Leondo Joseph, were charged by indictment in case 

number 14 CR 19078 with one count of armed robbery, six counts of aggravated kidnapping, and 

twelve counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault which were alleged to have occurred on 

September 26, 2012. And in 2016, defendant and co-defendant were charged by indictment with 

21 felony counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault in case number 16 CR16846 which were 

alleged to have occurred on December 5, 2011. At various times and at the time of defendant’s 

pleas, an assistant public defender (APD) represented defendant in both cases. In a separate case, 

14 CR19078, defendant proceeded pro se to a jury trial where he was convicted on charges of 

aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated battery and the circuit 

court sentenced him to 147 years in prison.

¶ 4 Between November 18, 2014, and July 14, 2017, defendant made multiple motions to 

proceed pro se in the cases at issue which were granted after admonishments. However, each 

period of self-representation ended with the reappointment of the Office of Cook County Public 

Defender and the APD would return to representing defendant. 

¶ 5 At a July 14, 2017 court date, the State informed the circuit court that the parties had 

reached an agreement that in return for defendant’s pleas of guilty to two charges of aggravated 

criminal sexual assault, Class X felonies, one charge under 14 CR 19078 and one charge under 

16 CR 16846, the State would recommend that defendant receive a minimum term of six years’ 

imprisonment on each charge, to be served consecutively to one another, as well as to defendant’s 

147-year prison term in 14 CR 19078. 

¶ 6 Before accepting defendant’s pleas, the circuit court confirmed that defendant understood 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 3 -

the terms of the “plea deal” as described by the State. The court read defendant the relevant charges 

and informed him of the applicable sentencing ranges which included extended terms, and that the 

sentences on each charge would be served at 85% and consecutively both to each other and to his 

prior sentence. The court further admonished defendant as to his right to plead not guilty and his 

trial rights and confirmed that no one had threatened or promised him anything other than 

informing him of the negotiated agreement, and that he was satisfied as to his legal representation. 

Defendant stated that he understood the possible sentences, his rights, and that he was waiving 

those rights in pleading guilty. He informed the court that he was 31 years old and had received a 

bachelor’s degree. The State recited the stipulated facts in support of the charges of aggravated 

criminal sexual assault.

¶ 7 The court found there was a factual basis for the pleas, accepted defendant’s guilty pleas, 

and entered sentences of six years on each charge, to be served consecutively to each other and to 

his sentence in 14 CR 19078. The court granted defendant credit for 1023 days for which he had 

been in custody. The State nolle prossed all other counts in both cases.

¶ 8 Defendant timely filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas on August 8, 2017. In his 

motion, defendant claimed that he felt pressured by the State to take the pleas, and that he “did not 

understand the terms and did not want to plea.” He also expressed a desire to go to trial where he 

would be found not guilty. Finally, defendant claimed that he did not receive the full 1023 days 

credit for time served.

¶ 9 The APD, serving as defendant’s post-plea counsel, filed both an amended motion to 

withdraw the pleas and a certificate in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. 

July 1, 2017). The amended motion merely listed defendant’s allegations, including that defendant 

“had never ‘copped out’ before and didn’t understand the terminology,” “did not understand the 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 4 -

‘terms’ of the ‘cop out,’ ” and “did not fully understand the ramifications of his plea of guilt.” In 

the certificate, the APD stated that he had consulted with defendant regarding his claims of error 

in the entry of the guilty pleas, that he had reviewed the court files and report of proceedings from 

the hearing on the pleas and “made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate 

presentation of any defects in those proceedings.” The certificate did not state that the APD had 

consulted with defendant regarding any error in his sentences.

¶ 10 The court held a hearing on the pro se motion to withdraw and amended motion (together 

the motion to withdraw) on November 6, 2017. At the hearing, defendant testified in support of 

his claims. In particular, defendant asserted that at the time of his pleas, he did not understand that 

he was waiving his right to trial and his chance to prove his innocence. The court denied the motion 

to withdraw and defendant’s motion to reconsider that denial. Defendant appealed.

¶ 11 On appeal, defendant filed an agreed motion for summary disposition which asserted that 

the APD had failed to comply with Rule 604(d). Specifically, defendant maintained that the rule, 

as amended in 2015, required the APD to consult defendant as to claims of error in both the plea 

and the sentences even where there has been a negotiated plea. People v Gillespie, 2017 Il App 

(1st) 152351, ¶ 12. After considering the agreed motion, this court vacated the circuit court’s denial 

of the motion to withdraw, and remanded for the appointment of counsel, the opportunity to file a 

new post-plea motion, the filing of a compliant Rule 604(d) certificate, and a new hearing on 

defendant’s request to withdraw his plea. Joseph, No. 1-17-3124 (2019) (agreed summary 

disposition order).

¶ 12 Upon remand, on January 14, 2020, the APD filed a certificate under Rule 604(d) (second 

certificate). This second certificate stated that the APD had consulted with defendant in person “to 

ascertain Defendant’s contentions of error in the entry of the guilty pleas” and had “examined the 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 5 -

trial court files and both the report of proceedings of the pleas of guilty and the sentencing hearing 

and has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects 

in those proceedings.” The APD made no further amendments to the pro se motion to withdraw.

¶ 13 The case was then continued from time to time for various reasons including the impact of 

restrictions on court operations due to the coronavirus pandemic. During this time, a new attorney 

from the Office of the Cook County Public Defender (post-plea counsel) began to represent 

defendant. 

¶ 14 On April 13, 2022, a second hearing was held on the motion to withdraw. At this hearing, 

defendant testified that he felt pressure to accept the plea deal and plead guilty. He also testified 

as to the circumstances surrounding his pleas and his discussions with the APD. Defendant 

described the offer from the State as “spur of the moment.” The APD told him that the State’s offer 

was a “one-time deal” and defendant understood that he could not get a continuance to consider 

the offer. According to defendant, the APD informed him that the six-year sentences would be 

served at 50% and run concurrently and he would not have to register as a sex offender. Defendant 

explained to the APD that he was illegally arrested and there was no DNA evidence and he wished 

to go to trial. The APD told defendant that because of his prior convictions and the publicity 

surrounding his cases, he was not likely to succeed at trial and would receive lengthy sentences. 

The APD directed defendant to “say yes to everything” and say nothing else during the plea hearing 

and defendant followed these instructions. During the plea hearing, defendant heard that the 

sentences would be consecutive but he thought that meant concurrent. In his testimony, defendant 

made other complaints about the APD’s representation not only as to the pleas but also as to the 

APD’s lack of communication and failure to file motions on his behalf.

¶ 15 At the State’s request, the transcripts of the proceedings from the July 14, 2017 plea hearing 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 6 -

and the November 6, 2017 original hearing on the motions to withdraw were admitted into 

evidence.

¶ 16 In closing, the State argued that the motions to withdraw did not raise an ineffectiveness 

of counsel claim and therefore, defendant’s testimony about that subject should be disregarded. 

Post-plea counsel did not respond to the State’s forfeiture argument in his closing remarks. The 

court continued the matter to April 22, 2022 for ruling.

¶ 17 On that date, the court first stated that it would again reserve ruling for another date. The 

court noted that the case had had been remanded in part to give defendant “the opportunity to file 

a new post-plea motion.” The court asked post-plea counsel whether he and defendant had 

“deemed” it unnecessary to file an amended motion to withdraw. Post-plea counsel responded that 

he had adopted the amended motion of the APD. The court believed there were deficiencies in the 

motions to withdraw and the APD’s Rule 604(d) certificates and gave as an example that the 

certificates did not state that counsel had consulted defendant about his contentions of error in his 

sentencing. The court continued the case for post-plea counsel to consider whether to file an 

amended certificate and motion to withdraw.

¶ 18 At the next court date, May 26, 2022, the court granted post-plea counsel leave to file a 

supplemental Rule 604(d) certificate (supplemental certificate) and an amendment to supplement 

the pro se motion to withdraw (supplemental motion). In the supplemental certificate, post-plea 

counsel stated that he had consulted with defendant to ascertain his claims of error in the plea and 

the sentence, reviewed the court files and report of proceedings from the plea and sentencing 

hearing, and made any necessary amendments to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw to 

adequately present the alleged defects. In the supplemental motion, post-plea counsel merely stated 

that defendant was “only challenging his guilty plea, not the negotiated sentence.”
No. 1-22-0981 

- 7 -

¶ 19 In court, post-plea counsel explained that defendant was not seeking to change his 

sentences to concurrent sentences but rather was seeking to “[s]traight out withdraw his guilty 

plea.” The circuit court then asked: “And [defendant] still—he or you are still arguing that one of 

the reasons why the guilty plea should be withdrawn is because he misunderstood consecutive or 

concurrent?” Post-plea counsel answered, “Yes, Judge.” 

¶ 20 The court denied the motion to withdraw. In its oral ruling, the court, based on a review of 

the report of proceedings from the plea hearing, found that defendant, an intelligent and educated 

31-year-old, had not been pressured by the State into accepting the plea agreement and had pled 

guilty freely, intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily. The court also noted that the record 

rebutted defendant’s claim that he had been dissatisfied with the APD’s representation. Defendant 

has appealed.

¶ 21 On appeal, defendant argues that this case must be remanded for a second time due to a 

lack of strict compliance with Rule 604(d). More specifically, defendant asserts that, although the 

supplemental certificate is facially compliant, the record refutes post-plea counsel’s certification

that he made any necessary amendments to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw because he 

failed to amend the motion to include defendant’s complaints of ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶ 22 Rule 604(d) sets forth the procedures for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. People v. 

Grice, 371 Ill. App. 3d 813, 815 (2007). The rule provides that an appeal from a judgment entered 

on a plea of guilty which challenges the plea cannot be taken unless the defendant files in the trial 

court a motion to withdraw the plea and vacate the judgment. Ill. S. Ct. Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 

2017). The grounds for the motion to withdraw must be stated in writing. Id. Rule 604(d) imposes 

a duty on the defendant’s attorney and states:

“The defendant’s attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate stating that the attorney 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 8 -

has consulted with the defendant either by phone, mail, electronic means or in person to 

ascertain defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty, 

has examined the trial court file and both the report of proceedings of the plea of guilty and 

the report of proceedings in the sentencing hearing, and has made any amendments to the 

motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings.” Id.

¶ 23 Defense counsel must strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d). People v. 

Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 26. When counsel failsto strictly comply with the rule, we must remand 

to the trial court for further proceedings on the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty. People v. 

Janes, 158 Ill. 2d. 27, 33 (1994). Whether counsel has complied with the requirements of Rule 

604(d) is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 25. 

¶ 24 At issue in this appeal is the requirement of Rule 604(d) that post-plea counsel certify that 

he made any amendments to defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas which were necessary to 

present the defects in the proceedings relating to defendant’s pleas. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 

1, 2017). This obligation ensures that post-plea counsel has thoroughly reviewed defendant’s 

claims and has considered all relevant bases for a defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. 

People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 16. Where, as here, post-plea counsel filed a facially 

compliant supplemental certificate but defendant asserts a lack of strict compliance, we may 

consult the record to determine whether post-plea counsel actually fulfilled his obligations under 

Rule 604(d). Id. ¶ 8; see also People v. Bridges, 2017 IL App (2d) 150718, ¶ 8.

¶ 25 Leave to withdraw a plea of guilty is not granted as a matter of right, but, rather, is granted 

when required to correct a manifest injustice. People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36, 29 (2000). A court 

should allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea “[w]here it appears that the plea of guilty was 

entered on a misapprehension of the facts or of the law, *** or if the case is one where there is 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 9 -

doubt of the guilt of the accused, or where the accused has a defense worthy of consideration by a 

jury, or where the ends of justice will be better served by submitting the case to a jury.” People v. 

Davis, Ill. 2d 240, 244 (1991) (quoting People v. Morreale, 412 Ill. 528, 531-32 (1952)).

¶ 26 As we have stated, post-plea counsel filed a supplemental certificate which was facially 

valid under Rule 604(d). The supplemental certificate included the statement that post-plea counsel 

had made the necessary amendments to defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw. However, postplea counsel failed to amend the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw to include defendant’s 

claims that the APD was ineffective or gave him incorrect information or advice relating to the 

plea agreement and sentences. Defendant asserts that this failure on the part of post-plea counsel 

refutes the supplemental certificate and necessitates another remand. We agree.

¶ 27 After the remand from the first appeal, during the hearing on the motions to withdraw his 

pleas of guilty, defendant testified to alleged deficiencies in the APD’s representation during the 

pendency of the cases. Defendant also testified that the APD informed him that the plea offer was 

a “one-time” deal and based on his conversations with the APD, defendant understood he could 

not seek a continuance to consider the offer. Additionally, according to defendant, the APD

advised him that the sentences would be served concurrently and at 50% and that the pleas and 

convictions would be on charges that would not require him to register as a sex offender. Neither 

the APD’s amended motion to withdraw (which was adopted by post-plea counsel) nor post-plea 

counsel’s supplemental motion raised an ineffectiveness of counsel claim or alleged that the APD

gave defendant wrong information about the plea agreement. At the second hearing, post-plea 

counsel did not address the State’s argument that defendant’s testimony as to the inadequacy of 

counsel should be disregarded in that such a claim had not been raised in the motions to withdraw 

and then failed to add the claim to the supplemental motion.
No. 1-22-0981 

- 10 -

¶ 28 The record refutes that post-plea counsel actually made changes to defendant’s motion to 

withdraw which were necessary to present defendant’s claims of error in the plea proceeding.

¶ 29 Nonetheless, the State argues that because defendant failed to assert that the APD provided 

ineffective assistance of counsel in his pro se motion to withdraw or during his testimony at the 

original hearing on the motion, the record necessarily demonstrates that post-plea counsel strictly 

complied with Rule 604(d). This argument arguably may apply to the amended certificate filed by 

the APD after the remand if it had been compliant with Rule 604(d). This argument has no 

applicability to the supplemental certificate of post-plea counsel. By the time post-plea counsel 

filed the supplemental certificate and supplemental motion, he was aware of defendant’s testimony 

claiming the APD provided inadequate representation and misinformation as to the plea 

agreement. And as we have said, the State asked the court to disregard defendant’s testimony 

relating to ineffectiveness of counsel as the motions to withdraw did not contain such a claim. 

Further, after the hearing, the court gave post-plea counsel additional time to file an amended 

certificate and motion. The subsequent supplemental motion did not include an ineffectiveness of 

counsel claim. Further, after the supplemental motion was filed post-plea counsel informed the 

court that defendant was seeking to withdraw his plea in part because he believed that the sentences 

would be served concurrently and not consecutively. Defendant’s testimony at the second hearing 

placed the blame on the APD for his confusion. We reject the State’s argument that the record does

not refute the statement in the supplemental certificate that post-plea counsel had made “any 

amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects” in the plea 

proceedings. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 30 The State also argues that the circuit court in denying the motion to withdraw found that 

the report of proceedings from the plea hearing established that defendant was satisfied with the 
No. 1-22-0981 

- 11 -

APD’s representation and therefore “a remand would be fruitless and a waste of judicial 

resources.” However, the merits of a defendant’s underlying claim “[have] no bearing on whether 

counsel complied with Rule 604(d).” People v. Winston, 2020 IL App (2d) 180289, ¶ 18; (see also 

People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 34-35 (1994)). In other words, we are not to consider whether 

defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is likely to prevail when determining 

compliance with Rule 604(d).

¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, we find that post-plea counsel did not strictly comply with Rule 

604(d) by failing to amend defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw to include an ineffectiveness of 

counsel claim. As a result, we must vacate the order denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his 

guilty pleas and remand for strict compliance with Rule 604(d) and a new proceeding on 

defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

¶ 32 Vacated and remanded.