2024 IL App (4th) 230859-U 

NO. 4-23-0859 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. 

EDWARD E. EATON JR.

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Stark County 

No. 13CF22 

Honorable 

James A. Mack, 

Judge Presiding.

 

JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Harris and Zenoff concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence is 

vacated and the cause is remanded with directions for defense counsel to strictly 

comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 2 Defendant, Edward E. Eaton Jr., pleaded guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault

of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2012)), and was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment. 

Following proceedings under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. 

(West 2016)), the trial court determined defendant’s attorney provided ineffective assistance by 

failing to file a motion to reconsider defendant’s sentence. Defendant’s counsel then filed a motion 

to reconsider the sentence but did not file a certificate pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). The trial court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence. On 

appeal, the Third District Appellate Court allowed defendant’s unopposed motion to remand to the 

FILED

August 29, 2024 

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

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). 
- 2 -

trial court for compliance with Rule 604(d) and dismissed the appeal. People v. Eaton, No. 3-21-

0088 (Jan. 11, 2022). 

¶ 3 On remand, the trial court allowed defendant’s counsel to file a Rule 604(d) 

certificate, stating it was to be “entered of record nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2018, the same 

date on which the Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed.” Counsel then filed a

notice of appeal. In this appeal, defendant argues he is entitled to another remand because defense 

counsel again failed to comply with Rule 604(d). The State agrees this case should be remanded 

for compliance with Rule 604(d). We vacate the denial of defendant’s motion to reconsider his 

sentence and remand for further proceedings. 

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In September 2013, defendant was charged with two counts of predatory criminal 

sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1) (West 2012)). He subsequently entered a plea of guilty 

to one count, and the other count was dismissed. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court 

sentenced defendant to 24 years’ imprisonment. Defendant did not file a direct appeal.

¶ 6 In June 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion for reduction of his sentence and a 

petition seeking relief under the Act. In pertinent part, defendant alleged he asked his attorney to

file a motion to reduce his sentence and counsel failed to do so. The trial court appointed 

postconviction counsel, and defendant’s amended postconviction petition eventually advanced to 

an evidentiary hearing. Following the evidentiary hearing, the court determined defense counsel 

provided ineffective assistance by failing to timely file a motion to reconsider defendant’s 

sentence. The court, therefore, granted defendant postconviction relief and allowed him to file a 

motion to reconsider his sentence. 
- 3 -

¶ 7 In November 2019, defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider defendant’s 

sentence, but counsel did not file a certificate of compliance with Rule 604(d). The trial court 

denied defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence. On appeal, the Third District allowed 

defendant’s unopposed motion to remand for compliance with Rule 604(d) and dismissed the 

appeal. Eaton, No. 3-21-0088 (Jan. 11, 2022). 

¶ 8 On remand, the trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

appointed a new attorney to represent defendant. At a subsequent hearing, defendant’s new 

attorney proposed two potential courses for proceeding: (1) refiling the motion to reconsider the 

sentence with a Rule 604(d) certificate and conducting a new hearing on the motion or (2) allowing 

defendant’s previous counsel to file a Rule 604(d) certificate nunc pro tunc to the date the original 

motion to reconsider the sentence was filed. According to counsel, the first option “would involve 

probably zero judicial economy” and the second option would eliminate the need for another 

hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence. 

¶ 9 Defendant’s previous attorney was present at the hearing and agreed to file a Rule 

604(d) certificate nunc pro tunc and then file a notice of appeal. The trial court responded, “If you 

feel it appropriate, [defense counsel], you should file the [Rule] 604(d) certificate and then I guess 

a separate document. I will allow that to be filed nunc pro tunc.” 

¶ 10 On September 12, 2023, counsel filed a “Certificate of Post-Conviction Counsel 

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule (604(d)).” In the certificate, counsel requested, “pursuant 

to the [trial court’s] ruling,” that it be “entered of record nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2018, the 

same date on which the Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed by certifying 

counsel after having amended and supplemented the Defendant’s pro se petition in multiple 

aspects.” The certificate states: 
- 4 -

“1. I have consulted with the Defendant multiple times in person and by 

mail prior to preparing the Amended Petition for Post-Conviction relief, 

acknowledging as much in the Amended Petition itself at Paragraph 8. 

‘After having now discussed this case in person with the Defendant 

on multiple occasions, present counsel for [defendant] has 

determined that the Defendant wishes to allege the following 

additional instances of alleged violations of his constitutional rights 

...’ 

2. I have examined the entire common law record and have ordered, 

received and reviewed transcripts of all proceedings conducted in the case at the 

trial court level, as well as having had reviewed all related appellate court 

documents and correspondence between the Defendant and the State Appellate 

Defender’s office.

3. I have amended the Defendant’s pro se post-conviction relief petition 

extensively, with those amendments having been specifically noted in the Amended 

Petition.

4. Furthermore, I have pleaded claims made by the Defendant in his original 

pro se motion with more particularity as is evident in the Amended Petition for 

Post-Conviction Relief.” 

¶ 11 Counsel then filed a notice of appeal. 

¶ 12 This appeal followed. 

¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
- 5 -

¶ 14 On appeal, defendant argues this court should remand for additional postplea 

proceedings because his attorney has again failed to comply with Rule 604(d). Defendant contends, 

when a case is remanded for compliance with Rule 604(d), counsel is required to file a certificate

of compliance along with a new postplea motion if counsel determines a new motion is necessary. 

A new hearing must then be conducted on the motion. Defendant maintains none of those 

requirements were met in this case.

¶ 15 Defendant also argues a nunc pro tunc motion cannot be used to correct the error in 

failing to file a Rule 604(d) certificate. Further, even if this case presented an appropriate use of a 

nunc pro tunc motion, the certificate filed in this case failed to comply with Rule 604(d) for several 

reasons, including (1) it did not state counsel consulted with defendant to ascertain his contentions 

of error in the sentence and entry of the guilty plea and (2) it repeatedly referred to the amended 

postconviction petition, which is not relevant to these proceedings involving defendant’s motion 

to reconsider his sentence. Defendant requests a remand for compliance with Rule 604(d) and new 

postplea proceedings. Alternatively, defendant contends this court should remand for resentencing 

because the trial court improperly considered a factor inherent in the offense when imposing his 

sentence.

¶ 16 The State concedes defendant’s counsel failed to comply with Rule 604(d) and 

agrees this case should be remanded again for compliance. The State acknowledges the attempt to 

correct the error with a certificate filed nunc pro tunc did not provide defendant with the required 

remedy following remand for compliance with Rule 604(d). We agree. 

¶ 17 The proceedings on remand in this case were not sufficient to comply with Rule 

604(d) in any respect. Rule 604(d) provides, in pertinent part: 
- 6 -

“No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the 

defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial 

court 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. 

* * * 

*** 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. 

July 1, 2017). 

¶ 18 Strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required. People v. Prather, 379 Ill. App. 3d 

763, 768 (2008) (citing People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 33 (1994)). Our supreme court has held: 

“[W]hen defense counsel neglects to file a Rule 604(d) certificate, the appropriate 

remedy is a remand for (1) the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate; (2) the opportunity 

to file a new motion to withdraw the guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentence, if 

counsel concludes that a new motion is necessary; and (3) a new motion hearing.” 

People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522, 531 (2011). 

¶ 19 None of the requirements listed in Lindsay were met following the remand for 

compliance with Rule 604(d). First, the certificate filed by counsel on remand did not comply with 
- 7 -

Rule 604(d). Defense counsel only certified he consulted with defendant “prior to preparing the 

Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.” Counsel did not certify he consulted with defendant 

to “ascertain [his] contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty.” See Ill. 

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

¶ 20 Counsel also failed to certify he “made any amendments to the motion necessary 

for adequate presentation of any defects” in the sentencing and guilty plea proceedings. See id.

Instead, counsel certified he “amended the Defendant’s pro se post-conviction petition 

extensively” and “pleaded claims made by the Defendant in his original pro se motion with more 

particularity as is evident in the Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.” All of counsel’s 

statements in his certificate refer to the postconviction petition and the amendments to the petition 

alleging violations of defendant’s constitutional rights. However, defendant’s postconviction 

claims are not at issue here. Postconviction relief was granted in this case, allowing defendant the 

opportunity to file a postplea motion to reconsider his sentence. This case involves those postplea 

proceedings where the requirements of Rule 604(d) must be met. The only matter currently before 

the court is compliance with Rule 604(d) and the requirements set forth in Lindsay on remand. See

Eaton, No. 3-21-0088 (Jan. 11, 2022) (allowing defendant’s unopposed motion to remand to the 

trial court for compliance with Rule 604(d)). The third requirement from Lindsay has also not been 

met because no new hearing was held on defendant’s postplea motion. 

¶ 21 Additionally, we note that even if the certificate filed by counsel was sufficient to 

comply with Rule 604(d), the original noncompliance with the rule could not be corrected by filing 

the certificate pursuant to a nunc pro tunc order. “ ‘A nunc pro tunc order is an entry now for 

something that was done on a previous date and is made to make the record speak now for what 

was actually done then.’ ” In re Aaron R., 387 Ill. App. 3d 1130, 1139-40 (2009) (quoting Pestka 
- 8 -

v. Town of Fort Sheridan Co., 371 Ill. App. 3d 286, 295 (2007)). Nunc pro tunc orders may only 

be used to correct clerical errors or to make the record reflect what actually occurred. Id. at 1140. 

Counsel’s failure to file a Rule 604(d) certificate with defendant’s motion to reconsider his 

sentence was not a clerical error that could be corrected with a nunc pro tunc order. See O’Gara v. 

O’Gara, 2022 IL App (1st) 210013, ¶ 38 (late filing of a motion to reconsider was not a clerical 

error that could be remedied by a nunc pro tunc motion). Further, according to counsel’s certificate, 

it was to be “entered of record nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2018, the same date on which the 

Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed.” However, the Rule 604(d) certificate 

should have been included with defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence, which was filed on 

November 21, 2019, not with his previously filed amended postconviction petition. 

¶ 22 In sum, the procedure employed on remand in this case was insufficient to comply 

with the requirements of Rule 604(d) and Lindsay. Defendant has not been provided with full and 

fair postplea proceedings in this case. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order denying 

defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence and remand for (1) the filing of a valid Rule 604(d) 

certificate, (2) the opportunity to file a new motion to reconsider the sentence, if counsel concludes 

a new motion is necessary, and (3) a new motion hearing. See Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d at 531; Ill. S. 

Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Given our decision remanding this case for further postplea 

proceedings, we do not consider defendant’s alternative argument that the court improperly 

considered a factor inherent in the offense when imposing his sentence. 

¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 24 For the reasons stated, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further 

proceedings. 

¶ 25 Vacated; cause remanded with directions.