NO. 4-01-0346

	IN THE APPELLATE COURT

	OF ILLINOIS

	FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

           Plaintiff-Appellee,

           v.

ROBERT E. HAMPTON,

           Defendant-Appellant.	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)	  Appeal from

  Circuit Court of 

  McLean County

  No. 00CF407

  Honorable

  Michael G. Prall,

  Judge Presiding.

______________________________________________________________

				JUSTICE TURNER delivered the opinion of the court:  	

		In April 2000, a grand jury indicted defendant, Robert

E. Hampton, on one count of burglary and one count of theft over

$300.  Defendant was later indicted on one count of aggravated

robbery.  In August 2000, defendant entered into an open guilty

plea on the charge of burglary, and the State agreed to drop the

remaining counts.  In October 2000, the trial court sentenced

defendant to 20 years in prison as a Class X offender.  In

November 2000, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sen

tence, which the trial court denied.

		On appeal, defendant argues (1) his cause must be

remanded because his attorney's Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 32d R.

604(d)) certificate failed to state he examined the report of

proceedings of the guilty plea; and (2) his prison sentence did

not accord with his rehabilitative potential and was improperly

disparate to his codefendant's sentence.  We reverse and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

		In April 2000, a grand jury indicted defendant on one count of burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2000)), alleging he knowingly and without authority entered a Freedom Oil gas station

with the intent to commit therein a theft.  The grand jury also

indicted defendant on one count of theft over $300 (720 ILCS

5/16-1(a)(4) (West 2000)), alleging he knowingly obtained control

over stolen property, United States currency and prepaid calling

cards belonging to Freedom Oil.  In July 2000, a grand jury

indicted defendant on one count of aggravated robbery (720 ILCS

5/18-5(a) (West 2000)), alleging he knowingly indicated by his

action to Loriann Hursey that he had a firearm and took property

from her presence by threatening the imminent use of force. 

		In August 2000, the State filed a motion to enhance

sentence disposition under section 5-5-3(c)(8) of the Unified Code of Correc

tions (Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8) (West 2000)), stating

defendant had prior felony convictions of armed robbery in 1991,

a Class X felony, and possession of a controlled substance with

the intent to deliver in 1989, a Class 2 felony.  Upon convic

tion, the State asked the trial court to advise defendant that he

would be sentenced as a Class X offender pursuant to section 5-5-

3(c)(8) of the Code.  

		Defendant entered an open guilty plea to the charge of

burglary, and the State agreed to drop the remaining counts at

the sentencing hearing.  The trial court advised defendant of the

possible 6- to 30-year prison term as a Class X offender.  The

State's factual basis indicated two black males wearing ski masks

entered the Freedom Oil gas station in Bloomington on April 4, 2000, at about 10:50 p.m.  The store clerk indicated "the taller

individual," believed to be a codefendant, had his hand in his

pocket as if he had a weapon.  Two men matching the description were later found in Chenoa with property stolen from the gas

station.  The court found defendant knowingly and voluntarily

entered his guilty plea.  

		In October 2000, the State dropped the remaining two

counts.  Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to 20

years in prison on the burglary count as a Class X offender

pursuant to section 5-5-3(c)(8) of the Code.  The court found no

statutory factors in mitigation.  In aggravation, the court noted

defendant's prior criminal history, age, the need to deter

others, and the protection of the public.  In November 2000,

defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, asserting his

sentence was excessive and the trial court failed to adequately

consider his rehabilitative potential and the support from his

fiancée and her children.  In April 2001, defendant's attorney

filed a certificate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188

Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) in conjunction with defendant's motion.  The trial court denied defendant's motion to reconsider.  This appeal

followed.

II. ANALYSIS

		Defendant argues defense counsel's certificate failed

to comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), and remand is

required for the filing of a new certificate and a new hearing on

his motion to reconsider sentence.  We agree.

		Supreme Court Rule 604(d) provides in part that before

a defendant who pleaded guilty may appeal from the judgment

entered on the plea, the defendant must move to withdraw his

guilty plea, or if only the sentence is being challenged, he must

file a motion to reconsider his sentence within 30 days.  People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 361, 692 N.E.2d 1189, 1190 (1998); 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).  Rule 604(d) also provides, in pertinent

part, as follows:

		"The defendant's 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

defendant's contentions of error in the sen

tence or 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 adequate presentation of any defects in

those proceedings."  188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).

The certificate requirement allows "the trial court to insure

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."  Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 361, 692 N.E.2d at 1191.  Our supreme court has held the certificate

requirement of Rule 604(d) must be strictly complied with. 

Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 362, 692 N.E.2d at 1191; People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 35, 630 N.E.2d 790, 793 (1994).

		In the case sub judice, defendant argues defense counsel's certificate failed to conform to the requirements of

Rule 604(d) and relies on People v. Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d 727, 713 N.E.2d 242 (1999).  The State disagrees and contends remand

is not required under People v. Wilson, 295 Ill. App. 3d 228, 692 N.E.2d 422 (1998).  We agree with defendant that this cause must

be remanded.

		In Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 733, 713 N.E.2d at 246, the defendant argued defense counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate

was deficient because it failed to include a statement showing

counsel examined the transcript of the guilty plea hearing and

failed to contain certification that counsel made any necessary

amendments to the motion.  The State argued the defendant had the

same attorney throughout the proceedings, and counsel's reference

to his review of the "court file" would likely include a review

of the guilty plea transcript.  Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 733, 713 N.E.2d at 246.  Defense counsel's certificate of compliance

stated:

		"'I have consulted with the [d]efendant in

person to ascertain his contentions of error

in this cause; and *** I have examined the

trial court file and report of proceedings of

the sentencing hearing.'"  Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 734, 713 N.E.2d at 246.  

		The Second District found defense counsel's certificate failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d).  Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 734, 713 N.E.2d at 246.  Although defense counsel

acknowledged he received the transcripts from the court report

ers, it was unclear whether he had examined the transcript

relating to the guilty plea hearing.  Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 734, 713 N.E.2d at 246.  The appellate court would not excuse

defense counsel's failure to comply with Rule 604(d), even though

he had represented the defendant throughout the proceedings,

because strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required.  Mast, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 734-35, 713 N.E.2d at 246-47.

		In Wilson, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 238, 692 N.E.2d at 429, defense counsel's Rule 604(d) certificate indicated he "'obtained

the trial court file from Judge Patton's court reporter and

examined that file in Judge Patton's courtroom.'"  The certifi

cate did not indicate counsel examined the report of proceedings. 

Wilson, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 238, 692 N.E.2d at 429.  

		This court found the certificate complied with Rule

604(d) because it referred to a particular file that contained

the report of proceedings.  Wilson, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 238, 692 N.E.2d at 429.  The court also noted defense counsel referred to

the report of proceedings at subsequent hearings, thereby con

firming his examination.  Wilson, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 239, 692 N.E.2d at 429.

		In this case, defense counsel filed his Rule 604(d)

certificate in the form of a checklist.  Defense counsel placed

an X in boxes indicating he had (1) personally consulted with the defendant regarding this motion; (2) consulted with the defendant

by mail regarding the motion; (3) examined the trial court file;

and (4) elected to make no modifications to the motion.  The

checklist also included the following category with defense

counsel's corresponding marks:

"(X) I have reviewed the following transcripts:

	( ) report of plea of guilty proceedings

	(X) sentencing hearing

	( ) other                                ." 

Here, defense counsel indicated he reviewed the transcript of the

sentencing hearing but made no indication that he reviewed the

report of the guilty plea proceedings.  We do not believe defense

counsel's statement that he examined the trial court file was

enough to comply with Rule 604(d) in this case.  The motion to

reconsider and Rule 604(d) certificate were filed in April 2001. 

The report of proceedings was filed in May 2001.  Thus, the

report of the guilty plea proceedings may not have been within

the trial court file for defense counsel to examine.  The fact

that defense counsel specifically marked the space for the

sentencing hearing, but not that of the report of the guilty plea

proceedings, leads us to conclude the Rule 604(d) certificate was

insufficient.  

		We also note that at the hearing on the motion to

reconsider sentence, defense counsel made no reference to the

report of the guilty plea proceedings, but did refer to the

sentencing hearing transcript.  Also, even though defendant was represented by the same attorney throughout the proceedings,

strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is still required.  The remedy

for failure to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) is a remand to

the trial court for the filing of a new motion to reconsider

sentence and a new hearing on the motion.  Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33, 630 N.E.2d at 792.  We make no comment or ruling on defen

dant's remaining claims of error pertaining to his prison sen

tence.  

III. CONCLUSION

		For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court's

judgment denying defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence

and remand for further proceedings.

		Reversed and remanded.

		APPLETON and McCULLOUGH, JJ., cConcconcur.