Title: People v. Janes
Citation: 158 Ill. 2d 27, 196 Ill. Dec. 625, 630 N.E.2d 790
Docket Number: 73235
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 1994

630 N.E.2d 790 (1994)
158 Ill. 2d 27
196 Ill. Dec. 625
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,
v.
Ronald J. JANES, Appellant.
No. 73235.

Supreme Court of Illinois.
January 20, 1994.
Charles M. Schiedel, Deputy Defender, and Allen H. Andrews, Asst. Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for appellant.
Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Millard S. Everhart, State's Atty., Toledo (Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Solicitor Gen., and Terence M. Madsen and Marcia L. Friedl, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Justice HARRISON delivered the opinion of the court:
On October 11, 1991, defendant, Ronald J. Janes, pled guilty in the circuit court of Cumberland County to three counts of murder. Defendant also waived his right to have a jury determine whether he would receive a sentence of death. At the first stage of the capital sentencing hearing, the trial court found defendant eligible for death under the Criminal Code of 1961 (the Criminal Code), section 9-1(b)(3) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 38, par. 9-1(b)(3)). At the second stage of sentencing, after hearing evidence in aggravation and mitigation, the court sentenced defendant to death. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 38, par. 9-1(h).) The death sentence was stayed (134 Ill.2d R. 609(a)) pending direct review by this court (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 4(b); 134 Ill.2d R. 603).
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether he must be granted a new hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea where counsel failed to comply with the certificate requirements of Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (145 Ill.2d R. 604(d)); (2) whether the imposition of the death penalty was arbitrary and capricious where the State, at one time, had offered defendant a sentence of natural life in prison if he pled guilty; (3) whether the trial court erred in weighing as an aggravating factor its belief that defendant would kill in the future; (4) whether the trial court erred when it refused to consider defendant's evidence that the death penalty is a costly and counterproductive form of punishment; (5) whether, given the evidence *791 in mitigation, the trial court erred in imposing a death sentence; and (6) whether the death penalty statute is unconstitutional. Because we find that this cause must be remanded for new proceedings under Rule 604(d), we recite only those facts pertinent to our decision.
Immediately following sentencing on January 29, 1992, defendant filed, pro se, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a motion for resentencing. Defendant's attorney informed the court that although he felt his obligations as a court-appointed attorney had terminated, he would nonetheless argue the motions because he felt defendant was "entitled to post-trial motions." In denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea that same day, the court stated: "Enough time has passed that I am sure counsel have had adequate opportunity to review what occurred at the plea of guilty and * * * [a]s far as I know, both sides have had opportunity to obtain a stenographic record of that proceeding from the court reporter then present." However, the record shows that the transcript of the guilty plea hearing was not certified by the court reporter and filed in the circuit court until March 2, 1992. Additionally, the record does not show that defense counsel filed a certificate purporting compliance with Rule 604(d).
In People v. Wilk (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 93, 124 Ill. Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218, this court consolidated four cases in which the defendants' appeals were dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 604(d) that a motion to withdraw the guilty plea must be filed before taking an appeal. Wilk explained that the purpose of Rule 604(d) was:
In reaching the decision in Wilk, this court also noted its disapproval of noncompliance with any of the requirements of Rule 604(d), remarking:
Because the Wilk court's comments referred to Rule 604(d) in its entirety, each of the five districts of the appellate court thereafter adopted a rule of strict compliance with its requirements. See People v. Denson (1st Dist.1993), 243 Ill.App.3d 55, 183 Ill. Dec. 582, 611 N.E.2d 1230; People v. Dickerson (2d Dist.1991), 212 Ill.App.3d 168, 156 Ill. Dec. 426, 570 N.E.2d 902; People v. Vickery (3d Dist.1991), 207 Ill.App.3d 574, 152 Ill. Dec. 808, 566 N.E.2d 495; People v. Johnson (4th Dist.1990), 207 Ill.App.3d 122, 152 Ill. Dec. 42, 565 N.E.2d 284; People v. Hayes (5th Dist. 1990), 195 Ill.App.3d 957, 142 Ill. Dec. 680, 553 N.E.2d 30.
In Hayes, which is factually similar to the case at bar, defense counsel did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate or review the transcript of the guilty plea hearing, and the defendant was indigent and not supplied a copy of the transcript. Based upon these facts, the Fifth District of the Appellate Court found:
The appellate court in Denson, Dickerson, Vickery and Johnson, citing, inter alia, the "strict compliance" reasoning in Hayes, similarly granted the defendants therein the right to file a new motion to withdraw guilty plea and the right to have a hearing on the new motion. With this opinion, we affirm the holdings of these cases and unequivocally state that, with the exception of the motion requirements addressed in Wilk and Wallace, the remedy for failure to strictly comply with each of the provisions of Rule 604(d) is a remand to the circuit court for the filing of a new motion to withdraw guilty plea or to reconsider sentence and a new hearing on the motion.
*793 Our holding necessarily implies a rejection of the strict compliance analysis found in several recent appellate court cases, notably People v. Gilson (1993), 246 Ill.App.3d 564, 186 Ill. Dec. 457, 616 N.E.2d 647, and People v. James (1992), 233 Ill.App.3d 963, 174 Ill. Dec. 876, 599 N.E.2d 960. James held that any failure to comply with Rule 604(d) results in the waiver of the defendant's right to an appeal and relegates him to proceed through the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 38, par. 122-1 et seq.). The court in Gilson erroneously found that because this court, in Wilk, held that a defendant's failure to file a motion to withdraw guilty plea under Rule 604(d) required the dismissal of the defendant's appeal, any failure to comply with the rule must have the same result. However, as we have noted, Wilk reaffirmed, and the rule explicitly states, that the filing of a motion to withdraw guilty plea is a condition precedent to an appeal. While Rule 604(d) does impose other requirements, among them the filing of a certificate of compliance by the defendant's attorney, nowhere in the rule is it stated that the fulfillment of these requirements is a condition precedent to an appeal, and Wilk`s further admonition that all of the provisions of Rule 604(d) must be complied with does not create such a precondition.
In the instant case, although the State impliedly agrees that denying a defendant his right of direct appellate review is not the proper remedy for rule violations other than failure to file a motion to withdraw guilty plea or to reconsider sentence, the State argues that where the record affirmatively reflects substantial compliance with the rule, a harmless error analysis is appropriate. The State reasons that when it can be determined on the record that a defendant has not been prejudiced by any violations of Rule 604(d), a remand for new proceedings would serve no purpose. We reject this argument for several reasons.
In People v. Gabala (1991), 211 Ill.App.3d 351, 155 Ill. Dec. 864, 570 N.E.2d 377, the First District of the Appellate Court held that substantial compliance with Rule 604(d) is adequate under certain circumstances. However, the court in Gabala relied only on cases decided prior to Wilk. (See People v. Lyell (1982), 109 Ill.App.3d 819, 65 Ill. Dec. 286, 441 N.E.2d 78; People v. Lange (1978), 59 Ill.App.3d 603, 16 Ill. Dec. 812, 375 N.E.2d 919; People v. Evans (1977), 46 Ill.App.3d 689, 5 Ill. Dec. 77, 361 N.E.2d 77; People v. Norris (1977), 46 Ill.App.3d 536, 5 Ill. Dec. 105, 361 N.E.2d 105.) Recently, the First District has twice stated that it believed Gabala was contrary to the clear import of Wilk (Denson, 243 Ill.App.3d at 61-62, 183 Ill. Dec. 582, 611 N.E.2d 1230; James, 233 Ill.App.3d at 969, 174 Ill. Dec. 876, 599 N.E.2d 960), and we must agree. As the court stated in Dickerson:
Conversely, a rule that counsel need not strictly comply merely generates disputes on review, like the instant one, over whether the record shows that there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 604(d). Accordingly, where the record herein does not show strict compliance with the certificate requirement of Rule 604(d), we reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Therefore, pursuant to this court's supervisory authority, we retain jurisdiction and remand *794 this cause to the circuit court of Cumberland County to allow defendant to file a new motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a hearing on that motion in full compliance with Rule 604(d). If, upon completion of the proceedings on remand, defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied, this court will address, at defendant's request, the correctness of that decision and the remaining issues raised herein. See People v. Garrett (1990), 139 Ill. 2d 189, 195, 151 Ill. Dec. 329, 564 N.E.2d 784.
Circuit court reversed in part; cause remanded with directions.
[1]  At the time defendant filed his motion to withdraw guilty plea in January 1992, a previous version of Rule 604(d) was in effect. (See 134 Ill. 2d 604(d).) However, for clarity's sake and because the changes in the rule play no part in our decision in the case at bar, we chose to cite to the current version of the rule.
[2]  In People v. Wallace (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 59, 155 Ill. Dec. 821, 570 N.E.2d 334, this court made it clear that, under Wilk, a defendant seeking to appeal only the sentence entered upon a plea of guilty must file a motion to reconsider sentence as a prerequisite to that appeal.