Opinion ID: 2479363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Kerkering

Text: The next case to construe Janes was People v. Kerkering, 283 Ill.App.3d 867, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368 (1996), another case in which defense counsel neglected to file a Rule 604(d) certificate. On remand, defense counsel filed a proper certificate but did not file a new motion to reconsider the sentence. Instead, counsel simply stood on and reargued the original motion, which the trial court again denied. This time, the appellate court affirmed. Id. at 873, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368. The Kerkering court began its analysis by walking through the process set forth in Rule 604(d). Under that rule, counsel is permitted to amend a defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentence if it is necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings. Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). Whether counsel amends the motion or not, counsel must file a certificate stating that he or she has reviewed the proceedings for potential error and, if necessary, amended the motion. Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). Once counsel files the certificate, the trial court may then hear and decide the motion. Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). In Kerkering, the defect in the proceedings was counsel's failure to file a Rule 604(d) certificate. Kerkering, 283 Ill. App.3d at 871, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368. Consequently, the court concluded, this is where the case should begin again upon remand: with the attorney reviewing the proceedings for potential error and, if necessary, making amendments to the motion. (Emphasis omitted.) Id. In reaching this result, the Kerkering court expressly disagree[d] with the Oliver court's interpretation of Janes.  Id. at 870, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368. According to Kerkering, although Janes contains language that, on its face, appears to mandate the filing of a new motion on remand, the Janes court based its decision upon the rationale in several appellate court cases, and the Hayes decision in particular. Id. at 871, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368 (citing People v. Hayes, 195 Ill.App.3d 957, 142 Ill.Dec. 680, 553 N.E.2d 30 (1990)). Kerkering found this significant because [n]owhere in the Hayes opinion is it stated that, upon remand, trial counsel must file a new motion to reconsider sentence or to withdraw guilty plea. (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 871-72, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368. Rather, Hayes held only that the defendant be ` allowed to file a new motion to withdraw his guilty plea and    allowed a new hearing.' (Emphases in original.) Id. at 872, 219 Ill.Dec. 454, 671 N.E.2d 368 (quoting Hayes, 195 Ill.App.3d at 961, 142 Ill.Dec. 680, 553 N.E.2d 30). As importantly, Kerkering observed, notwithstanding any mandatory language to the contrary, the Janes court used permissive language when it remanded the cause `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).' (Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting Janes, 158 Ill.2d at 36, 196 Ill. Dec. 625, 630 N.E.2d 790). Thus, Kerkering concluded, the proper reading of Janes is that when a case is remanded for the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate, the attorney need only file a new motion to reconsider sentence or to withdraw guilty plea if he or she determines that such action is `necessary for [the] adequate presentation of any defects' [citation] in the guilty plea or sentencing proceedings. Id. (quoting Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Aug.1, 1992)).