2021 IL App (1st) 173115-U

No. 1-17-3115 

Order filed October 25, 2021 

First Division

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 DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JIMMIE SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 09 CR 10062

Honorable 

William T. O’Brien, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE WALKER delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Pucinski and Coghlan concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The matter is remanded for compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d). 

¶ 2 Defendant Jimmie Smith entered a blind plea of guilty to four counts of aggravated 

criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(4), (8) (West 2008)) and was sentenced to a total of 

110 years’ imprisonment. He appeals, arguing that counsel did not comply with Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), and that the trial court delivered improper admonishments
No. 1-17-3115 

- 2 - 

under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). We remand for compliance with 

Rule 604(d). 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Defendant was indicted on multiple charges, including four counts of aggravated criminal 

sexual assault, following an incident on May 9 and 10, 2009. The indictment alleged generally that 

defendant kidnapped and assaulted four victims, two of whom were younger than 18 years old.

¶ 5 The office of the Public Defender of Cook County initially represented defendant, but the 

trial court permitted it to withdraw on December 15, 2014, after defendant assaulted counsel. On 

December 17, 2015, the court designated the public defender’s office as “stand-by counsel,” and

officially reappointed it on March 14, 2016. 

¶ 6 On March 15, 2016, defendant agreed to enter a blind plea to four charges of aggravated 

criminal sexual assault in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. The court accepted the 

plea and continued the matter for sentencing.

¶ 7 Both defendant and the new public defender filed motions to withdraw the plea prior to 

sentencing. Counsel’s motion also requested leave to withdraw from representation because of a 

conflict of interest related to defendant’s assault of the previous public defender.

¶ 8 On June 22, 2016, the court removed the new public defender and appointed pro bono

counsel, who filed an amended motion to withdraw plea and a Rule 604(d) certificate on October 

27, 2016. The trial court denied the amended motion on June 29, 2017. 

¶ 9 Following a hearing on September 26, 2017, the court imposed four consecutive prison 

terms, comprising two 30-year terms and two 25-year terms, for a total sentence of 110 years. 

Defendant elected to remain in the lockup during the hearing, and when the court directed pro 
No. 1-17-3115 

- 3 - 

bono counsel to ask defendant whether he wanted to be present for post-sentencing 

admonishments, counsel reported back that defendant declined. The court then recited postsentencing admonishments.

¶ 10 On October 18, 2017, through pro bono counsel, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his 

sentence. Counsel did not file a new Rule 604(d) certificate. The court modified the fines and fees 

order and otherwise denied the motion on October 24, 2017. That same day, defendant filed a 

notice of appeal stating that he appealed from the “[d]isposition” entered on October 24, 2017. 

¶ 11 On May 18, 2021, we took this case on appellant’s brief only. See First Capitol Mortgage 

Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 131-33 (1976).

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 13 On appeal, defendant first argues remand is necessary because pro bono counsel failed to 

follow Rule 604(d)’s certification requirements or refile the motion to withdraw plea following 

sentencing. 

¶ 14 Prior to appealing from a guilty plea, a defendant must file in the trial court within 30 days 

of sentencing “a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence is being challenged, or, if 

the plea is being challenged, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.” Ill. 

S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Rule 604(d) further requires defense counsel to file with the 

court a certification that he consulted with the defendant to ascertain any contentions of error

regarding both his sentence and plea, examined the trial court file and report of proceedings, and 

made any necessary amendments to the motion. Id. Where a defendant files a motion to withdraw 

plea before sentencing, he must then refile the motion to withdraw plea within 30 days of 

sentencing, and counsel must file a new Rule 604(d) certificate. See People v. Marquez, 2012 IL 
No. 1-17-3115 

- 4 - 

App (2d) 110475, ¶¶ 4, 8. Rule 604(d) requires strict compliance, and the failure to so comply 

requires remand to the trial court. People v. Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 26. We review de novo 

whether counsel complied with Rule 604(d). Id. 

¶ 15 Here, the public defender who represented defendant when he pleaded guilty filed a motion 

to withdraw plea prior to sentencing. On June 22, 2016, pro bono counsel filed an amended motion 

to withdraw plea and a Rule 604(d) certificate. The trial court denied the amended motion on June 

29, 2017. Following sentencing, pro bono counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence, but did 

not file a new Rule 604(d) certificate. Thus, counsel did not strictly comply with Rule 604(d). See 

Marquez, 2012 IL App (2d) 110475, ¶¶ 4, 8. The proper remedy is remand for new post-plea 

proceedings, “including (1) the filing of a new Rule 604(d) certificate; (2) the opportunity to file a 

new motion to withdraw the guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentence,” if necessary, “and (3) a 

new motion hearing.” Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 37. 

¶ 16 Because we conclude that remand is appropriate based on counsel’s failure to strictly 

comply with Rule 604(d), we need not address defendant’s argument regarding the trial court’s 

Rule 605(b) admonishments.

¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 18 For the foregoing reasons, the matter is remanded for compliance with Rule 604(d). 

¶ 19 Remanded with instructions.