People v. H.L. (In re H.L.)

• Decision Date: 04 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 118529.,118529.
• Citation: People v. H.L. (In re H.L.), 48 N.E.3d 1071 (Ill. 2015)
• Parties: In re H.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellant, v. H.L., Respondent–Appellee).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

48 N.E.3d 1071

In re H.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.H.L., Respondent–Appellee).

No. 118529.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 4, 2015.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 2016.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard Schmack, State's Attorney, of Sycamore (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Brian McLeish, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, Lawrence M. Bauer and Victoria E. Jozef, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Thomas A. Lilien, Deputy Defender, and Sherry R. Silvern, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Elgin, for appellee.

OPINION

Chief Justice GARMANdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 At issue in this appeal is whether the attorney certificate required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d)(eff. Feb. 6, 2013) must be filed at or before the hearing on a defendant's postplea motion.The appellate court, relying on People v. Shirley,181 Ill.2d 359, 230 Ill.Dec. 23, 692 N.E.2d 1189(1998), held that the certificate must be filed at or before the hearing on the motion.The court remanded to the circuit court of De Kalb County for further proceedings.2014 IL App (2d) 140486, 386 Ill.Dec. 336, 20 N.E.3d 498.The State filed a petition for leave to appeal, which we granted.Ill.S.Ct. R. 315(a)(eff. Jan. 1, 2015).

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3Respondent, H.L., admitted the allegations of petitions to revoke his probation in two separate cases and admitted the allegations of a delinquency petition in a third case.He was sentenced to indefinite commitment in the Department of Juvenile Justice.Respondent filed a motion to reconsider his sentence.The trial court denied the motion.Respondent's trial counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate approximately three weeks after the hearing on the motion to reconsider.Counsel also filed a notice of appeal.

¶ 4 On appeal, respondent argued, inter alia, that his trial counsel failed to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) because he failed to file the certificate prior to or at the time of the hearing on respondent's motion to reconsider sentence.The appellate court agreed and vacated the trial court's denial of respondent's motion to reconsider sentence.The court remanded to the trial court for the filing of a new motion, should counsel deem it necessary.The appellate court directed that a new hearing be held on the motion and stated that counsel must file a new Rule 604(d) certificate at or before the new motion hearing.¹2014 IL App (2d) 140486, ¶¶ 7, 8, 386 Ill.Dec. 336, 20 N.E.3d 498.We disagree with the appellate court's holding and now reverse its judgment.

¶ 5 ANALYSIS

¶ 6 This appeal requires us to interpret Rule 604(d).The principles that apply to the construction of statutes also apply to the interpretation of this court's rules.People v. Thompson,238 Ill.2d 598, 606, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403(2010).Our goal is to ascertain and give effect to the drafters' intent.People v. Campbell,224 Ill.2d 80, 84, 308 Ill.Dec. 730, 862 N.E.2d 933(2006).We begin with the language of the rule, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.People v. Santiago,236 Ill.2d 417, 428, 339 Ill.Dec. 1, 925 N.E.2d 1122(2010).When the language of the rule is clear and unambiguous, it will be applied as written without resort to aids of construction.Thompson,238 Ill.2d at 606, 345 Ill.Dec. 560, 939 N.E.2d 403.Where the language used is plain and unambiguous, we may not add provisions not contained therein or read exceptions or limitations into the rule that conflict with the drafters' expressed intent.Acme Markets, Inc. v. Callanan,236 Ill.2d 29, 38, 337 Ill.Dec. 867, 923 N.E.2d 718(2009).The interpretation of a supreme court rule is a question of law that we review de novo.People v. Tousignant,2014 IL 115329, ¶ 8, 378 Ill.Dec. 796, 5 N.E.3d 176.

¶ 7 Rule 604(d) governs the procedure to be followed when a defendant wishes to appeal from a judgment entered upon a guilty plea.Pertinent to this appeal, the rule also provides:

“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.”

¶ 8This court requires strict compliance with the certification requirement of Rule 604(d).People v. Janes,158 Ill.2d 27, 35, 196 Ill.Dec. 625, 630 N.E.2d 790(1994).

¶ 9 In People v. Wilk,124 Ill.2d 93, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218(1988), this court recognized the purpose of Rule 604(d) :

“That purpose is to ensure that before a criminal appeal can be taken from a guilty plea, the trial judge who accepted the plea and imposed sentence be given the opportunity to hear the allegations of improprieties that took place outside the official proceedings and dehors the record, but nevertheless were unwittingly given sanction in the courtroom.Rule 604(d) provides for fact finding to take place at a time when witnesses are still available and memories are fresh.[Citation.]A hearing under Rule 604(d) allows a trial court to immediately correct any improper conduct or any errors of the trial court that may have produced a guilty plea.The trial court is the place for fact finding to occur and for a record to be made concerning the factual basis upon which a defendant relies for the grounds to withdraw a guilty plea.If the motion to withdraw the plea is denied, that decision can be considered on review.”Id. at 104, 124 Ill.Dec. 398, 529 N.E.2d 218.

¶ 10 The filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate “enables the trial court to insure 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.The attorney certificate thereby encourages the preservation of a clear record, both in the trial court and on appeal, of the reasons why a defendant is moving to withdraw his plea or to reduce sentence.”Shirley,181 Ill.2d at 361, 230 Ill.Dec. 23, 692 N.E.2d 1189.

¶ 11The State argues before this court that the rule's language concerning the attorney certificate does not contain a timing requirement; rather, the rule requires trial counsel to file the certificate “with the trial court.”Thus, according to the State, respondent's trial counsel strictly complied with the rule when he filed the certificate with the trial court while that court still had jurisdiction of the case.Respondent relies, as did the appellate court, on this court's decision in Shirley in arguing that strict compliance with the rule requires that the certificate be filed prior to or at the time of the hearing on the postplea motion.

¶ 12 Before Shirley was decided, this court addressed the question of strict compliance with the certificate requirement of Rule 604(d) in two cases.In People v. Janes,158 Ill.2d 27, 196 Ill.Dec. 625, 630 N.E.2d 790(1994)(Janes I ), the defendant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to death.He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.The trial court denied the motion.Defendant's trial counsel failed to file a Rule 604(d) certificate.This court stated that, with the exception of the motion requirements of Rule 604(d), the remedy for a failure to strictly comply with each of the provisions of the rule is a remand to the trial court for the filing of a new motion to withdraw guilty plea or reconsider sentence and a new hearing on the motion.Because the record did not show strict compliance with the attorney certificate requirement, this court retained jurisdiction of the case and remanded to the trial court to allow the defendant to file a new motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a hearing on the motion.Id. at 33–36, 196 Ill.Dec. 625, 630 N.E.2d 790.

¶ 13 Following remand, the Janes Idefendant filed a second appeal in this court, People v. Janes,168 Ill.2d 382, 214 Ill.Dec. 273, 660 N.E.2d 980(1995)(Janes II ).The trial court had reappointed the defendant's trial counsel on remand and again denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.The defendant's counsel timely filed a Rule 604(d) certificate in the trial court.On appeal, the defendant argued that trial counsel had a conflict of interest because he had provided the State on appeal in Janes I with an affidavit stating that he had examined a copy of the transcript and made any amendments to the defendant's pro se motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in the guilty plea proceedings.The defendant asserted that his trial counsel had thus aligned himself with the State.This court rejected this argument, noting that the attorney's affidavit was a belated attempt to comply with Rule 604(d) and that when this court remanded to the trial court for strict compliance with the rule, it did so, not because the attorney's affidavit was improper, but because Rule 604(d)“requires that this affidavit be filed prior to making a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.”Id. at 388–89, 214 Ill.Dec. 273, 660 N.E.2d 980.

¶ 14 Neither Janes I nor Janes II stands for the proposition that the Rule 604(d) certificate must be filed prior to filing a postplea motion or prior to the hearing on such a motion.Janes I did not even mention the affidavit filed by the defendant's trial counsel on appeal in that case.In addition, despite what this court stated in Janes II,the court in Janes I said nothing about the timing of the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate.Indeed, the court noted that the defendant's attorney had failed to file a certificate at all; thus, there was no...