2021 IL App (4th) 200247-U 

NO. 4-20-0247 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. 

ANDREW R. MORECRAFT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

)

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Coles County 

No. 12CF148 

Honorable 

James R. Glenn, 

Judge Presiding.

 

 PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.

 Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court granted the Office of the State Appellate Defender’s motion to 

withdraw as counsel and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment as no issue of 

arguable merit could be raised on appeal.

¶ 2 Defendant, Andrew R. Morecraft, appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his 

motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition. On appeal, the Office of the State 

Appellate Defender (OSAD) moves to withdraw as counsel on the ground no issue of arguable 

merit can be raised. Defendant did not file a response to OSAD’s motion. We grant OSAD’s 

motion and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In May 2012, the State charged defendant by information with intentional first 

degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2010)) (count I) and knowing first degree murder 

FILED

November 16, 2021

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 - 

(720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2010)) (count II). Count II alleged defendant, “without lawful 

justification, struck [the victim] about the head and body with his fists or another blunt object, 

knowing said act created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to [the victim], 

thereby causing the death of [the victim].”

¶ 5 In January 2014, defendant entered into a fully negotiated guilty plea to knowing 

first degree murder (count II). He received a 25-year prison sentence to be served consecutively 

to a sentence in an unrelated case. In exchange, the State dismissed count I and a Class 2 felony 

for aggravated driving under the influence. The circuit court accepted defendant’s guilty plea and 

sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. The circuit court then admonished defendant of his 

appellate rights and explained defendant must file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea to 

preserve his right to appeal. Defendant did not file a postplea motion.

¶ 6 In April 2014, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal, 

which this court granted. Defendant later filed a motion to dismiss his direct appeal because he 

failed to file a timely postplea motion. We granted his motion.

¶ 7 In September 2015, defendant filed pro se a postconviction petition alleging plea 

counsel provided ineffective assistance by erroneously advising defendant he had no defense to 

first degree murder. The circuit court summarily dismissed defendant’s petition as frivolous and 

patently without merit. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied. 

On appeal, this court affirmed the summary dismissal of defendant’s petition. See People v. 

Morecraft, 2018 IL App (4th) 150990-U.

¶ 8 On March 27, 2020, defendant filed pro se a motion for leave to file a successive 

postconviction petition. Defendant alleged as cause the Illinois Supreme Court’s March 2016 

amendments to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Defendant argued the 
- 3 - 

amendments to the rule were retroactive and defense counsel was required to strictly comply 

with the certification requirements. Because defense counsel failed to file a certificate pursuant 

to Rule 604(d), defendant’s right to due process was violated. Defendant attached to his motion 

his proposed successive petition, further alleging counsel failed to comply with Rule 604(d).

¶ 9 On March 30, 2020, the circuit court denied defendant’s motion for leave to file a 

successive postconviction petition. In its written order, the circuit court noted, “[S]ince 

Defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty ***, his attorney was not required 

by Supreme Court Rule 604(d) to file a certificate.” The circuit court found defendant failed to 

establish cause and prejudice. 

¶ 10 This appeal followed.

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 On appeal, OSAD asserts no colorable argument can be made suggesting the 

circuit court’s denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition 

was in error. We agree.

¶ 13 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2018)) 

“provides a mechanism for criminal defendants to challenge their convictions or sentences based 

on a substantial violation of their rights under the federal or state constitutions.” People v. 

Morris, 236 Ill. 2d 345, 354, 925 N.E.2d 1069, 1075 (2010). The Act contemplates the filing of 

only a single postconviction petition, and any claim not raised in the original postconviction 

petition is deemed waived. People v. Holman, 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 25, 91 N.E.3d 849 (citing 725 

ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2010)).

¶ 14 The statutory bar against a successive postconviction petition will be relaxed only 

where a defendant sets forth a colorable claim of actual innocence or shows cause and prejudice 
- 4 - 

for the failure to raise an alleged constitutional claim in an earlier petition. Id. ¶ 26. Under the 

cause-and-prejudice test, a defendant demonstrates cause by identifying “an objective factor that 

impeded his or her ability to raise a specific claim during his or her initial post-conviction 

proceedings.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)(1) (West 2018). A defendant demonstrates prejudice by 

showing the “claim not raised during his or her initial post-conviction proceedings so infected 

the trial that the resulting conviction or sentence violated due process.” 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)(2) 

(West 2018). For a defendant to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition, both 

prongs of the cause-and-prejudice test must be satisfied. People v. Guerrero, 2012 IL 112020, 

¶ 15, 963 N.E.2d 909. “[L]eave of court to file a successive postconviction petition should be 

denied when it is clear, from a review of the successive petition and the documentation submitted 

by the petitioner, that the claims alleged by the petitioner fail as a matter of law or where the 

successive petition with supporting documentation is insufficient to justify further proceedings.” 

People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 35, 21 N.E.3d 1172.

¶ 15 OSAD contends defendant’s proposed successive postconviction petition has no 

arguable legal merit. We agree.

¶ 16 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017) provides, in pertinent part:

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

the defendant *** files in the trial court a motion to reconsider the sentence *** 

or *** a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.

 *** 

The motion shall be in writing and shall state the grounds therefor. *** 

The motion shall be presented promptly to the trial judge by whom the defendant 

was sentenced ***. The trial court shall then determine whether the defendant is 
- 5 - 

represented by counsel, and if the defendant is indigent and desires counsel, the 

trial court shall appoint counsel.

*** 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 the adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings.”

Defendant contended in his motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition and 

proposed petition defense counsel erred by failing to file a certificate pursuant to Rule 604(d).

However, “the purpose of the Rule 604(d) certificate requirement is to ensure counsel has 

reviewed the defendant’s claim and considered all relevant bases for the motion to withdraw the 

guilty plea or to reconsider sentence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Montag, 

2014 IL App (4th) 120993, ¶ 22, 5 N.E.3d 246. Defendant did not file, either pro se or with the 

assistance of counsel, any postplea motion. In the absence of such a motion, there is nothing for 

counsel to certify.

¶ 17 OSAD also notes there is no colorable argument the State improperly participated 

at the leave-to-file stage of the postconviction proceedings. In People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, 

¶ 24, 102 N.E.3d 114, the Illinois Supreme Court held “the State should not be permitted to 

participate at the cause and prejudice stage of successive postconviction proceedings.” The 

Illinois Supreme Court explained, although the Act “does not expressly prohibit the State’s input, 

we find that the Act contemplates an independent determination by the circuit court. The motion 
- 6 - 

for leave to file is directed to the court, and it is the court that must decide the legal question of 

whether a defendant has satisfied the section 122-1(f) requirement of showing cause and 

prejudice.” Id. In this case, the State did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore, no 

meritorious argument can be made the State participated improperly.

¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we grant OSAD’s motion for leave to withdraw as 

appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 20 Affirmed.