No. 2-- 05--1096 Fil ed: 7-27-07
IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f La ke Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 88-- CF--392 ) RONNI E W. CARROLL, ) Ho no r ab le ) Vic t o r ia A. Ro ss et t i, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEGR

OMETE R del

i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Ro nnie W. Ca rr o ll, appe als th e di sm i ss al of his pet itio n for re lief f

ro m judgment bro ught under section 2--1401 of the Ci vi l Practice Law (7 35 IL CS 5/2 --1401 (We st 2004 )). Pu rsu ant t o a g uilt y ple a, def endan t stands con

vi cted of , int er alia , a

rm ed rob b er y (Il l . Rev . Sta

t. 1987, ch. 38, pa

r. 1 8- -2 ) a

n d is s er v i n g a 55 -y ea r term of i m pri son men t. Defe ndan t was sentenced to an extended term because the tr ial cour t found t hat the o ff

ensewas ac co mpa nie d b y "e xc ep t io na lly brutal an d hei nous b eh av i or cl ea rl y i nd i ca ti ve of wa nt o n c rue lt y" (see

Ill . Rev . Stat. 1987, c

h. 38 , par. 1005- -5--3.2)
. On

A ugust 1 1, 1 988 , de f

en da nt f i l ed a m oti on to vacate hi

s guilty ple aand reconsi

der hi s s en ten ce . That m

oti on was den i ed . D ef

en da n t ap pe al ed , ra i si n g on l y an i ss ue th at p er tai n ed to sentenci ng, and we a

ff irm ed. See Pe o ple v. Ca rr o ll , 195 Il l . Ap p. 3d 44 5 (199 0). The petition that led

to the in stant appeal was f

il ed on Novem

ber 8, 2004. Defen

dant had pr ev io us ly

f i l ed f our p ostc onv

i cti on petitions . See 725 ILCS 5/122--1 et seq. ( We st 20 00 )
. I n so meNo. 2-- 05--1096

-2-

of these petitions, defen

dant rais ed the i ssue of h

is atto rney 's f ai lure to fi

le a Supreme Court Rul e 604(d) certif

i cate (s ee 18 8 Ill . 2d R. 6 04(d)) d uri ng th e pro ceed i

n gson de f en da n t' s m oti on to withdraw hi s guilty ple a. De fen da nt ag ain r ais es t ha t iss ue he r e. As t his iss ue bo t h w as an d c o uld have been rai sed earlier, pr in cipl es such as re s j udi ca

ta , wai ver, an d limit at io ns p er io ds wo uld seem to bar its r eas ser t ion her e. Defend ant at t empt s t o a void suc h hur dles by st yli zing t he pr ese nt attack
as one upon th

e v al i di ty of the tri al court's j udgm en t. Defe ndan t asserts that t he trial

court 's order denying his Au gu st 11 , 19 88 , mo t io n t o wit hd r aw his gu ilt y ple a i s voi d an d th eref oresu b j ect to coll ateral attack at any ti

me . See Peop l e v . Th

om ps on , 209 Il

l . 2d 19, 2 5 (200 4). At is sue i n thi s appeal , then, is

whether an attor n ey ' s f ai l ur e to f i l e a Ru l e 6 04 (d) c er

ti f i ca te renders any subse que nt or der by a tr ial cou rt void or merely vo idable. If t he fo rmer , a s de fendant asserts, t he t wo - yea rlimit at io ns p er io d c o nt ain ed in se ct io n 2
- - 14 01 o f t he Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/ 2--140 1(c) (W

est 200 4)) does

not app l y . People v . Ry

bur n , 362 Ill . App. 3d

870, 87 4 (2005 ). If the l

atter , this action i s tim

e barred. See People v . Raczkowski , 359 Ill . App. 3d 494, 496- 97 (20 05). Defend ant ci

tes se ve r al c as es co nt ain ing lan gu ag e t ha t wo uld see m to in dicate that the f

ail ure of an at t o rne y to f

i l e a Ru l e 6 04 (d) c er

ti f i ca te ren dersv oi d a

su b se qu en t j udgm en t on a m oti on to withdraw a gu ilty plea. Fo r e xample, in Pe o ple v. Ho ule , 257 Ill . App. 3d 721, 727 (1 994 ), t he court stated t hat co mpliance wit h "ce rt ifi cat ion is a c ond itio n pr ece dent t o a hear ing o n t he m otion ." See also Peop l e v . Di

ckers on , 212 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 16 8, 171 ( 1991) ("Ac cordi ngl y , we h old that wh ere defend ant ha s n

ot wai ve d counsel, the f

i l i ng of the def en se a ttorn ey's Rule 604(d) cert if icate is a
con di ti on pr ec eden t to a h ea ri n g on de f en da n t' s m oti on to wi th dr aw h i s p l ea of gui l ty an d to v ac ate t he j ud gm

en t" )
. T he wo r ds "c o nd it io n p r ec ed en t " s ug ge st t ha t un t il t he sp ec ified r eq uir eme nt isNo. 2-- 05--1096

-3-

satisf ie d, a he ar ing ma y no t pr o ce ed . I f, in deed, a heari

ng m ay not pr oc eed , a t rial co ur t lacks t he authority to hold one. On the ot her hand, the Fourt h Di strict o f thi s appell ate co urt has considered t he precise question we are co nf

ront ed with. It concluded as follows: "A t rial co ur t t hat pro cee ds wi th a heari ng on a m

ot ion to withdraw a gui

lty ple a withoutconf

i rm i ng th at coun sel f i l ed a R ule 604 (d) ce

rtif i cate pr oceed s i n e rror. [Ci tation .] T his does not renderthe rulin g on t he m

ot ion void." Pe opl

e v . Pe tty , 366 Ill . App. 3d 1170, 1177 ( 2006)
. Thu s, t he one court t o have pass ed express ly on the is sue determi

ned that the fai lure of an attor ney to fi l e a R ule 604 (d) certif

i cate re nde rs a s ubs eque nt rul i ng v oid ab l e rather tha

n v oid
. Defend ant asserts that the Pe tty court was si

mpl y w rong. First, def

endan t contends t hat t he trial court 's rul

in g was void in

stead of voi dabl

e becaus e "a trial

court has n

o stat uto ry or case l

aw au th ori ty to hold a heari ng on such

a m ot ion i n the ab sence of

a [Rul e] 604(d) cer tificate. " W e que sti on t he pr inc iple t ha t t he r e mu st be so me s t at ut o ry o rca se law ba sis f ora c o ur t 's a ct io ns. I t is true t ha t an ad minist r at ive ag en cy o ra c o ur t o f limit ed jur isd ict io n ma y ac t o nly in ac corda n ce wi th t he authority

conf erred on i t by statute. Pick er ing

v. H uman Right s Co mm'n, 146 Ill . App. 3d 340, 352 (1986) . Ho wever, t he trial courts o f thi s sta t e ar e co ur t s o f gener al jurisdict ion and "have origi nal j uri sdi cti on of al l j usticiab l e m

atters." Ill. Const
. 19 70 , ar t . VI , §9
. T he ir ju r isd ict io n is deriv ed f rom th e con sti tution
. Pe o ple ex r el. Gr af v
. Villa ge o f La ke Blu ff , 206 Ill . 2d 541, 553 (2003 ). The suprem

e court has ex

pl ai ne d that a j us ti ci ab l e m atter i s " a c ontr

ove rs y appropriatef

or reviewby the court , in

that it is defi ni te and concrete, as o ppo sed t o hypo t het ical or moo t , t ou ching upo n t he legal

relations of parties hav

in g adverse legal

in terest s." Be l l ev

i l l e T oy ota, In c. v . Toy otaNo. 2-- 05--1096

-4-

Motor Sale s, U.S.A., Inc. , 19 9 I l l . 2d 32 5, 3 35 (2 00 2) . W

h eth er de f en da n t sh oul d b e a l l owe d to withdraw his guil ty plea fit s w it hin t his d efin it io n. Fu r t he r , "[ o ] nc e a jus t icia ble mat t er is p r o pe r ly subm itted, a co ur t has t he po we rt o de cid e r igh t ly o rwr o ng ly t he iss ue s p r o pe r ly bef ore it. " Pe o ple
ex rel. Graf , 20 6 I ll. 2 d a t 55 4. Ac co r din gly, de fen da nt 's c o nt en t io n t ha t nothi ng g av e the

court au th ori ty to proc ee d i s i

nc orre ct; the

consti tution di d. Wh

i l e the man ner i n w hi ch the c ourt proceededma

y h ave consti

tut ed error, it did not deprive the c o urt of the au thor i ty to rul e on defend ant 's mot ion. Defend ant re lies heavily on t he "condi tion preceden

t" lan guage that can be f

ound in several
casest hat discuss Rul

e 604 (d) i ssues. Se e, e.g. , Ho ule , 2 57 I ll. App. 3d a t 727 . I n Peo ple v. Fl owers , 20 8 I ll. 2d 291, 300 (2003), t he suprem e court used t hi s exact

langua ge w hile explaining that the j uri sdi cti on of the a ppel l ate court wa s un

af f ected b y non com pli ance wi

th Ru l e 604 (d): "The fi li ng of a R ule 604(d) motion i s a condi tion preceden

t t o an appeal

f ro m a judg ment on a p l ea of

gui l ty. Pe o ple v. Wilk

, 124 Ill . 2d 93, 105 (1988). The di scovery that
a de fen da nt ha s fa iled t o file a t imely [Rule ] 60 4(d

) m oti on i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt doe s n ot depri ve the a ppel l ate court of

j uri sdi cti on ove r a sub seq uen t appea l
. In re Will

iam M. , 206 Il l . 2d 595 , 601 (2 003). As a general rule, h owever, the fai

lure to fi le a tim el y R ule 604(d)
m oti o nprecludes the appel la te court from

considerin

g the appeal

on the me

rits. Wh ere a defend ant has f

ai l ed to f i l e a wri tten moti on to w

i thd raw hi s p l ea of guil ty or to reconsider

his sentence , t he ap pe llat e c o ur t mus t dis miss t he ap pe al ( Pe o ple v. Ja m i son , 181 Ill . 2d 24, 28-29 (1998 )), leaving t he Po st -Co nvictio n Hea ring Act as t he defen dant's onl y recourse ( Pe o ple v. Foster , 171 Ill. 2d 469 (1996) )." Fl owers , 208 Ill . 2d at 300-01.No. 2-- 05--1096

-5-

Hence, Fl owersmakesi

t cl ea r th at a "c ond i ti on pr ec ed en t " is not n

ec es sa ril y a j urisd i cti ona l con di ti on pr ec eden t. Addi tional co nfi rmat ion t hat t he lack of a Rule 6 04( d) cer t ifi cat e do es no t affect a co ur t 's
au th ori ty can also be seen

in the hist or y of t he ru le. P rio r t o t he su pr eme co ur t 's de cision in Wilk , 124 Ill . 2d 93, cour ts rout in

el y a ppli ed a ha rmles s- er r o ran alys is w he n d efe nse co un se l ne gle ct ed t o file
a Rul e 604 (d) certif

i cate. Se e, e.g. , People v. Lye ll , 109 I ll . App. 3d 81 9, 822 ( 1982) ( "Thus, al thoughwe

do n ot co n don

e c arel es s tr i al pr acti ce b y cou n se l or c our t, w e h ol d th at th e f ai l ur e to adh erest r ict ly

to the form

alities of [R ule] 60 4(d ) in this case was har ml ess er ro r") ; Peop l e v . Hop son, 101 Ill . App. 3d 564, 574-75 (1981) ("Although we do not approve of counsel 's f ai lure t o fi le t he certif ic ate, I llino is court s hav

e hel d that strict compli

ance with the f

il in g provisi on of [Rule] 604(d) is not ne ces sary

wh erethe record reveals

that co unse l has pe rfo rmed all the fu nct ions r equ ired by the Rul e. [Ci tations.] In

such a case, the fa

il ure to fi le the certif ic ate wil l b e vi ewed as ha

rm l ess error"). Sin ce the l ac k o f jur isd ict io n " de pr ive s t he t r ial cou rt of al l pow er exc ep t to dismiss the act ion" ( Bra nd on v. Bo ne ll , 368 Ill . App. 3d 492, 502 (2006)), co nductin g a ha rm l ess -err o ran alys is is inc o mpa t ible w it h t he r eq uir eme nt s o f Ru le 6 04 ( d) be ing jur isd ict io na l. Furth er, Ill in ois courts no longer en

gage in a harmless -e rr or analysis reg ar ding Rul e 604 (d), f or, in Wilk , 124 I ll. 2 d a t 10 3- 04 , t he su pr eme co ur t he ld t ha t st r ict co mplia nc e w it h Rule 60 4( d) is required. In suppo rt o f i

ts decision, i

t cited numerous po li

cy concerns: "In short, Rule 604(d) ha s a purpose . That purpose is to ensure that bef ore a crim in al appeal can b e t aken f

rom a guilty

ple a, the trial

judge who accepted the ple a and i mposed sentence be giv en t he o pp o r t un it y t o he ar t he alle ga t io ns o f i mpropri eties that too k pla ce out side the off

ic ia l proceedi ngs an d deh ors t he r ec o r d, bu t ne ve r t he les s w er e u nw it t ing lyNo. 2-- 05--1096

-6-

giv en sa nc t io n in t he co ur t r o o m. Ru le 6 04 ( d) pr o vid es fo rfac t find ing t o t ak e p lac e a t a t ime when wit ne ss es ar e s t ill

avai la ble and m em ories ar e fr es h. [ Cit at io n. ] A he ar ing un de rRu le 604(d) allowsa trial

court to im

me dia tely correct any

im proper co nduc t or any err or s o f the trial court that may

have produced a guil

ty plea. The trial

court is the pla ce for f act finding to occ ur and fo r a re co rd t o be made c onc er ning t he fact ual bas is upo n which a d efend ant reli es f or the groun

ds to wi thdra w a gu i l ty p l ea. If th e m oti on to withdraw the pl

ea i s deni ed, that d ecisi

on can be considered o n review." Wilk , 124 Ill . 2d at 104. E ss en t iall y, Rul e 6 04( d) exi sts to f ac i l i ta t e t he r eview o f a t rial co ur t 's ac t ions, channe ling the procee di ngs to the pl ace wh erethey

can be most ef f ecti ve l y addre sse d. Nota

bl y , i n d ep arti ng f rom t he fo rmer rule o f su bst an t ial c o mplia nc e, t he su pr eme cou rt di d n ot base i ts dec i si on on t he inhere nt au th ori ty of the cour ts and inst eadapp ear ed c onc er ned p rimarily with jud icial effi ciency and t he effic ac y o f r ev iew in g en er al. Furth er, a lim ited ve rsion of the substan

t ia l c ompl ia nce rul e survi ved Wilk . I n Peo ple v. Shi rley , 181 Ill . 2d 359 (1998), t he suprem e court was co nf

ronted w it h t he sit uat ion whe re t he de f en da n t, h av i n g p re v i ous l

y se cu re d a re man d d ue to non com pli ance wi th Ru l e 604 (d), appealed a
sec ond ti me, a l l eg i ng tha t sa me error. Th e c ourt w

rote, "If thi s stan da rd of stri ct c om pl i an cei s n ot
met, the re

medy i s a re mand to af

f ord def endan t anothe r opportuni

ty to b e heard

o n his Ru le 604(d)
m otion
. Ho weve r, onc e t his remed y is grant ed, t her e is no further requi remen t under Rule

604(d) that suc cessiv

e remands an

d rehearings wi

ll be ordere d." Shi

rley , 18 1 I ll. 2d at 371. In r uling, t he court co ns ide

red the equities of the si

tuation: "the def

endan t was aff orded a ful

l a nd f ai r sec on d opp ortu n i ty t o p re sent a mot ion fo r r edu ced sent enci ng, [and] we see

li mi ted val ue i n requi rin g a repe at of th e ex ercise , a

b se n t a goo d reason t o do so." Shi rley , 181 Ill . 2d at 369. If, i

n f act, lackNo. 2-- 05--1096

-7-

of compl ia nce wi th Rul e 604(d) created a jurisdi ctional defec t, co mpl ia ncewi th th e ru l e c oul d n ot be rel axed on a sub sequent appeal , due to the equi ties of the si tuation or o therwis e. In sum , it i s am ply in dic ated that t he f

ai lure of counsel to fi le a Ru l e 6 04 (d) c er

ti f i ca te does not depriv e the trial courtof the auth

ority to proceed on

a m otion to with draw a gui l ty p l ea. Pe tty , 366 Ill . A pp. 3d 1 170 , sa

y s s o. The supr

em e c ourt h asex pl ai ne d that a "c ond i ti on precedent, " at least
as t he t er m is us ed

wi th re sp ect to R

ul e 6 04 (d), is n

ot a jurisdi ctional

bar. Such om

is si ons were, at on e ti me, su b j ect to a h

ar m l es s- er ror a n al y sis. A cc ordi

n gl y , w e a recom pe l l ed to re ject defend ant 's
as sertion that t he failure t o file a Ru le 604 (d ) c er t ifi cat e r ende rs a n ensu ing

judgm ent void. Instead, t his fa ilu r e r en de r ed t he ju dg men t vo id ab le a nd t hu s s ub jec t t o at t ac k o n d ir ec t ap pe al o nly ( In re Dyess , 62 I ll . App. 3d 571, 576 (1978)). S in ce i t was only

voida ble, this a ction i s tim

e barred. Raczkowski , 359 Ill . App. 3d at 496-97. In l i ght of the f oregoi ng, th e order of the c i rcui t court of La ke Cou n ty dismissing defend ant 's petition f or reli ef f rom j udgme

nt is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed. McL AR EN an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.