2020 IL App (1st) 162748-U

No. 1-16-2748 

Order filed April 10, 2020

Fifth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party 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. 

LACOLE MURRAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 14 DV 75903 

Honorable 

Laura Bertucci Smith, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Rochford concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We remand for strict compliance with Rule 604(d) because postplea counsel failed 

to certify that she consulted with defendant regarding her contentions of error in 

both the sentence and entry of the guilty plea. 

¶ 2 Defendant LaCole Murray pled guilty to domestic battery to a minor (720 ILCS 5/12-

3.2(a)(1) (West 2014)) and was sentenced to one year of probation. On appeal, she contends that 

postplea counsel failed to strictly comply with the certificate requirements of Rule 604(d), and the 

trial court erred in denying her motion to withdraw her plea because her plea was not knowing and 
No. 1-16-2748 

- 2 - 

voluntary, and she had a meritorious defense. We vacate and remand for compliance with Rule 

604(d). 

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with domestic battery to a minor for causing bodily harm to A.M., 

her 16-year-old son, by slapping his head with an open hand, punching him in the face with a 

closed hand, and choking him on August 19, 2014. On April 1, 2015, defendant pled guilty, 

pursuant to a negotiated plea, to domestic battery in exchange for one year of probation, 100 hours 

of community service, and mandatory registration for 10 years as a violent offender under the 

Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act. The court also informed her that 

an agreed order of protection was put in place and ordered that she “stay away” from A.M.

¶ 4 On April 28, 2015, defendant, with the assistance of plea counsel, filed a motion to 

withdraw her plea of guilty and vacate the judgment, arguing she was physically and emotionally 

ill on the date that she pled guilty due to the order of protection prohibiting her from having contact 

with her son. She further argued that her emotional distress, coupled with the lupus from which 

she suffered, caused her to “not fully comprehend the right she had to trial and/or a hearing on the 

order of protection hearing.” Defendant additionally asserted she did not fully understand the 

implications of her plea, including that she would have to register as a violent offender and, had 

plea counsel fully advised her of these implications, she would not have pled guilty. Finally, she 

claimed she had a meritorious defense of self-defense to domestic battery because she had evidence 

that A.M. was aggressive and “documentation that [A.M.] had become physical to her on more 

than one occasion.” 

¶ 5 On the same date, counsel filed a Rule 604(d) motion, certifying that she “consulted with 

defendant in person to ascertain her contentions of error in the plea of guilty,” examined the trial 
No. 1-16-2748 

- 3 - 

court file and the transcript of the plea hearing, and prepared a motion to withdraw defendant’s 

plea. 

¶ 6 On June 29, 2015, the court held a hearing on defendant’s motion and concluded that 

defendant was asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel. Consequently, the court 

continued the case and appointed a new attorney. 

¶ 7 On June 27, 2016, new postplea counsel filed an amended motion to withdraw defendant’s 

plea and vacate the judgment, raising the same arguments as in defendant’s initial motion to 

withdraw. Defendant added that she was examined by Dr. Joan H. Leska. 

¶ 8 Postplea counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate, certifying she “consulted with [defendant]

*** in person to ascertain her contentions of error in the entry of the guilty plea.” Postplea counsel 

further certified that she examined the report of proceedings and the trial file and amended 

defendant’s “current” motion to withdraw “for an adequate presentation of any defects in those 

proceedings.” 

¶ 9 Dr. Leska testified at the hearing on defendant’s amended motion to withdraw her plea. 

She concluded that defendant was unable to knowingly and intelligently plead guilty to domestic 

battery on April 1, 2015. Defense counsel who represented defendant at the plea hearing also 

testified that defendant was admonished in open court and indicated she understood the principles 

stated to her. The trial court denied defendant’s amended motion to withdraw, concluding that 

defendant’s claims did not render her guilty plea not knowing and voluntary. Defendant timely 

appealed.
No. 1-16-2748 

- 4 - 

¶ 10 On appeal, defendant argues that new postplea counsel failed to strictly comply with 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) by failing to certify in her Rule 604(d) 

certificate that she consulted with defendant about her sentence. 

¶ 11 We review de novo the question of whether defense counsel complied with Rule 604(d). 

People v. Grice, 371 Ill. App. 3d 813, 815 (2007). Rule 604(d) addresses procedures to be followed 

when, after pleading guilty, a defendant files either a motion to reconsider the sentence or a motion 

to withdraw a guilty plea. Id. In relevant part, the rule provides: 

“The defendant’s attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate stating that the attorney 

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.” Ill. S.Ct. 

R. 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).

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

Dryden, 2012 IL App (2d) 110646, ¶ 4. The remedy for failing to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) 

is to remand the matter to the circuit court for: (1) filing a proper Rule 604(d) certificate, (2) the 

opportunity to file a new motion to withdraw the defendant’s guilty plea and/or reconsider 

sentence, if counsel determines that a new motion is necessary, and (3) a new motion hearing. 

People v. Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 37. 

¶ 13 We agree with defendant that counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d). The record 

reflects that postplea counsel filed her June 2016 certificate pursuant to Rule 604(d) stating, in 
No. 1-16-2748 

- 5 - 

relevant part, that she “consulted with [defendant] *** in person to ascertain her contentions of 

error in the entry of the plea of guilty.” (Emphasis added). The rule requires that counsel consult 

with defendant regarding contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the guilty plea. 

(Emphasis added). Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Because counsel did not state that she 

conferred with defendant about any contentions of error in her sentence as well as her guilty plea, 

postplea counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d). 

¶ 14 The State argues, however, that counsel did comply with Rule 604(d) because defendant’s 

plea was negotiated, rather than open. However, as an initial matter, the State cites to an older 

version of the rule which required counsel to file a certificate stating, in relevant part, that counsel 

“has consulted with the defendant *** to ascertain defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence 

or entry of the plea of guilty.” (Emphasis added). Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). This older 

version of the rule was not in effect at the time new postplea counsel filed her certificate. 

¶ 15 Further, People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, and People v. Gillespie, 2017 IL App (1st) 

152351, which each dealt with the earlier version of the rule, make clear that whether a plea is 

open or negotiated, postplea counsel must consult with the defendant regarding both the entry of 

the plea and the sentence. When Tousignant was decided, Rule 604(d) stated that an attorney must 

consult with the defendant “to ascertain defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence or the 

entry of the plea of guilty.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). In 

Tousignant, a case in which the defendant pled guilty pursuant to an open plea, the supreme court 

held that the word “or” in the rule should be read as “and,” which would require plea counsel to 

certify he or she had consulted with the defendant about both the guilty plea and sentence.

Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 20. The court reasoned that the purpose of the rule was “to enable 
No. 1-16-2748 

- 6 - 

the trial court to ensure that counsel has reviewed the defendant’s claim and considered all relevant 

bases for the motion to withdraw the guilty plea or to reconsider the sentence,” ((emphasis in 

original) id. ¶ 16), which would enable the trial court to correct possible errors at the soonest 

opportunity (id. ¶ 19). 

¶ 16 In Gillespie, the defendant pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea and later moved to 

withdraw his plea. Counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate, stating, in relevant part, that he 

consulted with the defendant about his contentions of error in the entry of the guilty plea. 

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw. On appeal, we held that former 

Rule 604(d), which Tousignant had explained required plea counsel to certify counsel consulted 

with a defendant regarding contentions of error in the entry of plea and sentence, along with the 

other requirements, applies equally to both open and negotiated pleas. Gillespie, 2017 IL App (1st) 

152351, ¶ 12. Relying on People v. Martell, 2015 IL App (2d) 141202, ¶ 9, which rejected the 

proposition that Tousignant applied only to open pleas, we found, “Tousignant and the rule’s 

language are not limited to open pleas, and if our supreme court intends that it be so limited, it will 

say so explicitly.” Gillespie, 2017 IL App (1st) 152351, ¶ 12. We additionally noted the rule’s 

purpose: an attorney’s duty to consult with his or her client, regardless of whether the consultation 

affects the content of the motion. Id. Accordingly, we reject the State’s argument that Rule 604(d) 

applies only to open pleas. 

¶ 17 In this case, new postplea counsel failed to specify that she consulted with defendant 

regarding contentions of error in both the entry of the plea and the sentence. At the time counsel 

filed her certificate, the rule required consultation with defendant regarding both the sentence and 

the entry of guilty plea. Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Even under the earlier version of
No. 1-16-2748 

- 7 - 

the rule at issue in Tousignant and Gillespie, postplea counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 

604(d) if she did not consult with defendant regarding her sentence. In fact, after Tousignant, the 

supreme court amended the rule, effective December 3, 2015, to read that counsel must consult 

with the defendant regarding the “contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of 

guilty.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Dec. 3, 2015). Accordingly, we vacate the trial 

court’s judgment denying defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea and remand for: (1) the 

filing of a new postplea motion (if defendant so wishes), (2) a new hearing on defendant’s postplea 

motion, and (3) compliance with the requirements of Rule 604(d). Easton, 2018 IL 122187, ¶ 37. 

¶ 18 Because we conclude that this case must be remanded for further proceedings on 

defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea because her counsel failed to strictly comply with 

Rule 604(d), we need not address defendant’s remaining contention regarding the voluntariness of 

her guilty plea at this time. See People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 36 (1994) (where remand was 

required for compliance with Rule 604(d), the court declined to address additional issues the 

defendant raised on appeal regarding his guilty plea).

¶ 19 Vacated and remanded.