In response, the State initially points out that defendant cites no case law in support of this argument. Our review of the relevant portions of Rules 604 and 605 does not indicate to us that the transcript of the sentencing hearing is required for defendant's use at the hearing on the motion to reconsider the sentence. 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 his 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. Given this language, we will not read into the rules the requirement that the sentencing transcript must be furnished to defendant prior to the sentencing hearing. To do otherwise would be tantamount to engaging in rulemaking, a function which is solely the province of our supreme court.
Defendant maintains that remand is necessary for a third reason.
However, defendant concedes that this omission came to the trial court's attention and that defense counsel stated on the record that she did not think any amendments were required. In response, the State notes that the same defense counsel represented defendant through all phases of the trial court proceedings. We find that the relevant language of the rule does not support defendant's contention. This portion of the rule makes no reference to situations such as this in which defense counsel has thought it unnecessary to make any amendments to the motion. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.