2018 IL 122187 

IN THE
 

SUPREME COURT
 

OF
 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
 

(Docket No. 122187) 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. 

JORDAN EASTON, Appellee. 

Opinion filed November 29, 2018. 

JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, Burke, and 

Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION 

¶ 1 Defendant, Jordan Easton, pled guilty to aggravated unlawful possession of a 

stolen motor vehicle, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and four 

counts of unlawful use of a credit card. At sentencing, the circuit court of Kendall 

County imposed concurrent prison terms for all six convictions. Defendant moved 

for reconsideration of the sentences, and defense counsel filed a certificate pursuant 

to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). The circuit court denied 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the motion, and defendant appealed. The appellate court vacated the circuit court’s 

judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that defense counsel’s 

certificate did not comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Dec. 3, 

2015), which was amended during the pendency of the appeal. 2017 IL App (2d) 

141180. This court allowed the State’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 

(eff. Mar. 15, 2016). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the 

appellate court, albeit on different grounds. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 On August 26, 2014, defendant appeared in the circuit court on six distinct 

criminal cases. He entered open pleas of guilty to one count of aggravated unlawful 

possession of a stolen motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103.2(a)(7)(A) (West 2012)) 

(charged in case No. 2013 CF 333), one count of unlawful possession of a stolen 

motor vehicle (id. § 4-103(a)(1)) (charged in case No. 2014 CF 53), and four counts 

of unlawful use of a credit card (720 ILCS 5/17-36 (West 2012)) (charged in case 

Nos. 2014 CF 24, 2014 CF 138, 2014 CF 139, and 2014 CF 140). The circuit court 

sentenced him to prison terms of 10 years each for aggravated unlawful possession 

of a stolen motor vehicle and unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle and 

three terms of 6 years and one term of 5 years for unlawful use of a credit card, with 

all sentences to be served concurrently. In five of the six cases, the circuit court also 

ordered defendant to make restitution payments to the victims after his release from 

prison. 

¶ 4 On October 29, 2014, defendant’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, 

claiming that the sentences imposed were excessive and that the court failed to 

properly consider several factors in mitigation. Along with the motion to 

reconsider, defense counsel also filed a certificate as required under Rule 604(d).1 

¶ 5 At the time the certificate was filed, Rule 604(d) required counsel to certify, 

inter alia, that he or she “has consulted with the defendant *** to ascertain 

defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence or the entry of the plea of guilty, 

1

The record on appeal includes six identical copies of the motion to reconsider listing all six 

criminal case numbers in the caption. The same is true of defense counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate. 

However, the appellate court and the parties refer to these identical documents in the singular. For 

the sake of clarity and continuity, we do the same. 

- 2 ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[and] has examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea of 

guilty.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). The certificate 

filed by defendant’s attorney mirrored the language of Rule 604(d) that was in 

effect at that time and stated, in pertinent part, as follows: 

“1. I have consulted with the Defendant in person to ascertain his 

contentions of error in the imposition of the sentence or the entry of plea of 

guilty; 

2. I have examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the pleas 

of guilty.” 

The circuit court denied the motion on November 26, 2014, and defendant 

immediately appealed. 

¶ 6 While defendant’s appeal was pending, Rule 604(d) was amended to require 

that counsel certify that he or she “has consulted with the defendant *** to ascertain 

defendant’s 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). The amended rule also 

requires counsel to certify that he or she 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.” (Emphases added.) Id. 

¶ 7 On appeal, defendant argued that the amended version of Rule 604(d) applied 

retroactively to his case and that his counsel’s certificate failed to satisfy the 

requirements of the amended rule because counsel did not certify that she had 

consulted with him as to his contentions of error with regard to both his guilty plea 

and his sentence. 

¶ 8 The appellate court held that, because the amended version of Rule 604(d) is 

purely procedural, it applies retroactively to defendant’s case. 2017 IL App (2d) 

141180, ¶ 17. Applying the amended rule, the appellate court determined that 

defense counsel’s certificate was deficient on two grounds: it did not certify that 

she had consulted with defendant as to his contentions of error with regard to both 

his guilty plea and his sentence, and it did not certify that she had reviewed the 

report of proceedings of the sentencing hearing. Id. ¶ 18. Accordingly, the appellate 

court vacated the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for further 

- 3 ­
 

 

 

 

postplea proceedings, including the filing of a new Rule 604(d) certificate, a new 

motion to withdraw the guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentences, if necessary, 

and a new motion hearing. Id. ¶ 19. 

¶ 9 The State appeals to this court. 

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 11 A. Retroactivity of the Amendment to Rule 604(d) 

¶ 12 The fundamental issue in this appeal is whether the certificate filed by 

defendant’s counsel complied with the requirements of Rule 604(d). To resolve 

that question, we first determine which version of Rule 604(d) applies to 

defendant’s case. Therefore, we initially address the State’s argument that the 

appellate court erred in holding that the amended version of Rule 604(d) applies 

retroactively to defendant’s case, which was on appeal when the amendment 

became effective. According to the State, the sufficiency of defense counsel’s 

certificate is governed by the preamendment version of the rule that was in effect 

when the notice of appeal was filed in November 2014. 

¶ 13 As is true with statutes, the determination of the temporal reach of a supreme 

court rule is a matter of construction. See People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 15. 

The same principles that govern the construction of statutes also guide the 

interpretation of this court’s rules. People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693, ¶ 11; In re 

H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 6. Our goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of 

the drafters of the rule. Salem, 2016 IL 118693, ¶ 11; In re H.L., 2015 IL 118529, 

¶ 6. As with a statute, the interpretation of a supreme court rule and the 

determination of its temporal reach present questions of law that we review 

de novo. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 15; In re H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 6. 

¶ 14 Given that statutes and supreme court rules are treated congruently, we employ 

the same analytical framework to determine whether they may be applied 

retroactively. See In re Marriage of Duggan, 376 Ill. App. 3d 725, 728-29 (2007); 

People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Petroleum Corp., 363 Ill. App. 3d 613, 619-21 

(2006). Our retroactivity analysis is premised on that set forth by the United States 

Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), which was 

- 4 ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adopted by this court in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 

Ill. 2d 27 (2001). Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 20; People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 

2016 IL 120729, ¶ 19. 

¶ 15 Under that analysis, we first look to the rule itself to ascertain whether its 

temporal reach has been specifically articulated. See Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 20 

(citing Howard, 2016 IL 120729, ¶ 19). If the rule contains such an express intent, 

it must be given effect unless doing so would violate the constitution. Id. If the rule 

is silent as to its temporal reach, the court must determine whether the rule has a 

retroactive impact such that it “would impair rights a party possessed when he 

acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with 

respect to transactions already completed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. 

(quoting Howard, 2016 IL 120729, ¶ 19, quoting Commonwealth Edison, 196 Ill. 

2d at 38, quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). If the rule does not have a retroactive 

impact, it may be applied retroactively; if the rule has a retroactive impact, it is 

presumed to apply prospectively. Id. 

¶ 16 However, based on section 4 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/4 (West 

2016)), Illinois courts need not advance beyond the first step of the Landgraf 

analysis. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 21 (citing Howard, 2016 IL 120729, ¶ 20). 

Section 4 of the Statute on Statutes states: 

“No new law shall be construed to repeal a former law, whether such former 

law is expressly repealed or not, as to any offense committed against the former 

law, or as to any act done, any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred, or 

any right accrued, or claim arising under the former law, or in any way 

whatever to affect any such offense or act so committed or done, or any penalty, 

forfeiture or punishment so incurred, or any right accrued, or claim arising 

before the new law takes effect, save only that the proceedings thereafter shall 

conform, so far as practicable, to the laws in force at the time of such 

proceeding. If any penalty, forfeiture or punishment be mitigated by any 

provisions of a new law, such provision may, by the consent of the party 

affected, be applied to any judgment pronounced after the new law takes effect. 

This section shall extend to all repeals, either by express words or by 

implication, whether the repeal is in the act making any new provision upon the 

same subject or in any other act.” 5 ILCS 70/4 (West 2016). 

- 5 ­
 

 

 

 

¶ 17 Section 4 “ ‘is a general savings clause, which this court has interpreted as 

meaning that procedural changes *** will be applied retroactively, while 

substantive changes are prospective only.’ ” Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 22 (quoting 

Howard, 2016 IL 120729, ¶ 20). If the temporal reach is not clearly indicated 

within the text of the new provision, then the default directive set forth in section 4 

of the Statute on Statutes applies. Id. Therefore, an amendment that is purely 

procedural will apply retroactively unless a constitutional impediment precludes its 

application. Howard, 2016 IL 120729, ¶ 28. 

¶ 18 Here, the December 3, 2015, amendment to Rule 604(d) did not expressly 

indicate its temporal reach. Consequently, section 4 of the Statute on Statutes 

governs, and we consider whether that amendment to Rule 604(d) is substantive or 

procedural.2 

¶ 19 A procedural rule prescribes the method by which a party seeks to enforce a 

right or obtain relief. People v. Atkins, 217 Ill. 2d 66, 71-72 (2005) (citing Rivard v. 

Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 2, 122 Ill. 2d 303, 310-11 (1988)). 

Conversely, substantive rules establish the rights that may be redressed under a 

particular procedure. Id. Rules of procedure involve matters such as pleading, 

evidence, and practice. Id. Rules of practice direct the course of proceedings before 

the court. Id. 

¶ 20 Rule 604(d) governs the procedure by which a criminal defendant may appeal 

from a judgment entered on a guilty plea, and its terms dictate the practices that 

must be followed by defense attorneys in postplea proceedings. Given its 

procedural nature, amendments to the rule may be applied retroactively. That 

conclusion, however, does not resolve the inquiry in this case. 

¶ 21 As this court has explained, section 4 of the Statute on Statutes requires that 

“ ‘the proceedings thereafter’—after the enactment of the new procedural 

statute—‘shall conform, so far as practicable, to the laws in force at the time of such 

proceeding.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Hunter, 2017 IL 121306, ¶ 31 (quoting 5 

ILCS 70/4 (West 2016)). Thus, “[s]ection 4 contemplates the existence of 

proceedings after the new or amended [rule] is effective to which the new 

2

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 2(a) (eff. July 1, 2017) provides that this court’s rules “are to be 

construed in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Statute on Statutes.” 

- 6 ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

procedure could apply.” Id. This understanding of section 4 has been 

acknowledged by our use of the phrase “ongoing proceedings” when referring to 

the retroactive application of a procedural amendment under that provision. Id.; see 

also Howard, 2016 IL 120729, ¶ 28; People v. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 34, 46 (2011); 

People v. Zito, 237 Ill. 434, 440 (1908). 

¶ 22 Moreover, as we observed in Hunter, Landgraf addressed the application of a 

procedural rule to cases that antedate the amendment, stating: 

“ ‘Of course, the mere fact that a new rule is procedural does not mean that 

it applies to every pending case. A new rule concerning the filing of complaints 

would not govern an action in which the complaint had already been properly 

filed under the old regime, and the promulgation of a new rule of evidence 

would not require an appellate remand for a new trial.’ ” Hunter, 2017 IL 

121306, ¶ 34 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. 275 n.29). 

We further noted that Justice Scalia made the following observation in his special 

concurrence: 

“ ‘A new rule of evidence governing expert testimony, for example, is aimed at 

regulating the conduct of trial, and the event relevant to retroactivity of the rule 

is introduction of the testimony. Even though it is a procedural rule, it would 

unquestionably not be applied to testimony already taken—reversing a case on 

appeal, for example, because the new rule had not been applied at a trial which 

antedated the statute.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 35 (quoting Landgraf, 511 

U.S. at 291-92 (Scalia, J., concurring, joined by Kennedy and Thomas, JJ.)). 

¶ 23 In this case, defendant’s postplea proceedings in the circuit court were 

completed more than a year before Rule 604(d) was amended in December 2015. 

As a consequence, there were no “ongoing proceedings” to which the amended rule 

would apply. The result of the appellate court’s decision was to necessitate new 

proceedings in order to apply an amendment to a procedural rule that postdated the 

postplea proceedings. That conclusion is not warranted under our retroactivity 

jurisprudence, and as expressed in Hunter, we “have grave concerns about such a 

result.” Id. ¶ 33. Therefore, the appellate court erred holding that the amended 

version of Rule 604(d) applied retroactively to defendant’s case on appeal. 

- 7 ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¶ 24 B. Sufficiency of Defense Counsel’s Certificate 

Under the Prior Rule 

¶ 25 Because the amended version of Rule 604(d) does not apply, we examine 

whether defense counsel’s certificate satisfied the requirements of the rule that was 

in effect when the certificate and notice of appeal were filed. The issue of 

compliance with Rule 604(d) presents a legal question that we review de novo. See 

People v. Wilmington, 2013 IL 112938, ¶ 26 (citing People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 

2d 598, 606-07 (2010)); People v. Hall, 198 Ill. 2d 173, 177 (2001). 

¶ 26 It is firmly established that the certificate filed by counsel must strictly comply 

with the requirements of Rule 604(d). People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 35 (1994). If 

the certificate fails to meet this standard, a reviewing court must remand the case to 

the trial court for proceedings that strictly comply with Rule 604(d). Id. at 33. 

¶ 27 At the time defense counsel filed her certificate, Rule 604(d) provided, 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 sentence 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.” (Emphasis added.) 

Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). 

¶ 28 In People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, this court addressed the scope of 

defense counsel’s obligations under that version of Rule 604(d) to determine 

whether the rule “requires counsel to certify that he consulted with the defendant 

regarding defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence and the guilty plea, or 

only regarding contentions of error relevant to the defendant’s post-plea motion.” 

(Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 7. In so doing, we recognized that when the literal 

meaning of the word “or” is at variance with the purpose of a rule, it will be 

understood to mean “and” where necessary to effectuate the intent of the drafters. 

Id. ¶¶ 11-12 (citing John P. Moriarty, Inc. v. Murphy, 387 Ill. 119, 129-30 (1944)). 

- 8 ­
 

 

 

 

¶ 29 We noted that Rule 604(d) is designed to ensure that any potential errors in the 

entry of a guilty plea are brought to the trial court’s attention prior to the filing of an 

appeal. Id. ¶ 16. We also observed that the certificate requirement included in the 

rule “enable[s] 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. We determined that, with 

regard to defense counsel’s consultation obligation, a literal reading of the word 

“or” is at variance with the rule’s purpose and frustrates the goal of allowing trial 

courts to address potential improprieties in the guilty plea before an appeal is taken. 

Id. ¶ 18. However, construing the rule to require that counsel certify he or she 

consulted with the defendant about both sentencing and plea errors makes it more 

likely that all potential errors are addressed in the postplea proceeding. Id. ¶ 19. 

Accordingly, we held that, to effectuate the intent of Rule 604(d)’s consultation 

obligation, “the word ‘or’ is considered to mean ‘and.’ ” (Emphases added.) Id. 

¶ 20. Further, we expressly stated that, “[u]nder this reading, counsel is required to 

certify that he has consulted with the defendant ‘to ascertain defendant’s 

contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty.’ ” (Emphasis 

in original.) Id. 

¶ 30 Thus, our decision in Tousignant clearly held that, in order to comply with Rule 

604(d), defense counsel must certify that he or she consulted with the defendant as 

to both types of error. Id. Although Tousignant was controlling precedent at the 

time of defendant’s postplea proceeding, defense counsel’s certificate stated that 

she had “consulted with the Defendant *** to ascertain his contentions of error in 

the imposition of the sentence or the entry of plea of guilty.” (Emphasis added). 

Therefore, the certificate failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d) as 

construed by this court in Tousignant. 

¶ 31 The State argues that, although defense counsel failed to tailor her certificate to 

our holding in Tousignant, the certificate was sufficient because it strictly complied 

with the “text” of the rule. The State posits that, in light of Tousignant, defense 

counsel’s use of the word “or” means that she “necessarily certified” she had 

consulted with defendant about both sentencing and plea errors. This argument is 

without merit because it is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of both 

the purpose of the rule and our decision in Tousignant. 

- 9 ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

¶ 32 As explained above, the goal of Rule 604(d) is to ensure that counsel’s 

consultation with defendant encompasses any contentions of error in both the entry 

of the guilty plea and the imposition of sentence. The point of the rule is to protect 

the defendant’s interests through adequate consultation. The certificate serves as 

evidence that the requisite consultation has taken place. It is the mechanism by 

which the circuit court is able to verify that counsel has fulfilled the rule’s 

requirements. Where a certificate uses the word “or” rather than “and,” it does not 

confirm that both types of error were discussed with the defendant. Such a 

certificate is deficient because it offers the circuit court no assurance of counsel’s 

compliance with the consultation obligation. 

¶ 33 Contrary to the State’s argument, the fact that “or” is construed as “and” within 

the context of Rule 604(d) does not require that it be interpreted the same way when 

used in the context of counsel’s certificate. The reason for this lies in the 

fundamental nature of the type of language being examined. In construing the 

language of the rule, our task is to ascertain the intent of its drafters and explain 

what burdens are imposed on counsel—our interpretation operates as a directive to 

guide future conduct. 

¶ 34 When examining a certificate filed pursuant to the rule, our task is to determine 

whether counsel has actually satisfied that directive. The certificate relates the 

details of counsel’s consultation with the defendant. Its objective is to describe past 

conduct—i.e., the factual circumstances of an interaction with defendant that has 

already taken place. In examining the sufficiency of the certificate, the court is not 

seeking to ascertain counsel’s intent in its drafting—rather, the court is charged 

with evaluating counsel’s prior actions to determine whether the requirements of 

the rule have been satisfied. The focus is to ascertain what counsel actually did to 

achieve compliance with the rule. Given the nature and function of the certificate, 

counsel’s use of the term “or” does not serve as a guarantee of compliance with 

Rule 604(d)’s imperatives. 

¶ 35 In addition, the State’s argument misapprehends the import of our decision in 

Tousignant. The clarity of our statement that “counsel is required to certify” that he 

or she has consulted with the defendant as to both types of error cannot be 

challenged. That statement held authoritative weight and served to modify how the 

consultation requirement in Rule 604(d) must be understood and satisfied. Our 

- 10 ­
 

 

 

 

 

 

construction of the rule mandates that defense counsel specify in the certificate that 

he or she has consulted with defendant as to both types of error. Thus, Tousignant 

held, in essence, that tracking the “text” of the rule is inadequate, and a certificate 

that uses the word “or” to describe the consultation with defendant is deficient. 

¶ 36 Moreover, the State’s position that defense counsel’s certificate in this case 

complied with the rule is at odds with the underlying justification for our decision 

in Tousignant. We held that construing “or” to mean “and” with regard to the 

consultation obligation was necessary to effectuate the intent of the drafters and to 

advance a primary purpose of the rule. See id. ¶¶ 11-12, 16, 18, 20. Acceptance of 

the State’s argument directly contravenes that intent and impedes the purpose of the 

rule, where use of the word “or” does not confirm that counsel discussed both types 

of errors with the defendant. 

¶ 37 Because defense counsel’s certificate did not comply with Rule 604(d) as 

construed by Tousignant, defendant’s case must be remanded to the circuit court 

for new postplea 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 counsel concludes that a new motion is necessary; 

and (3) a new motion hearing. See e.g. People v. Lindsay, 239 Ill. 2d 522, 531 

(2011). On remand, counsel is required to comply with the current rule, which 

codifies the holding in Tousignant and also imposes the additional requirement that 

counsel review the report of proceedings in the sentencing hearing. 

¶ 38 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 39 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed. 

¶ 40 Appellate court judgment affirmed. 

¶ 41 Circuit court judgment vacated. 

¶ 42 Cause remanded. 

- 11 ­