People v. Keath

• Decision Date: 06 November 1981
• Docket Number: No. 16748,16748
• Citation: People v. Keath, 428 N.E.2d 992, 101 Ill.App.3d 652, 57 Ill.Dec. 312 (Ill. App. 1981)
• Parties: , 57 Ill.Dec. 312 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven Allen KEATH, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 992

428 N.E.2d 992

101 Ill.App.3d 652, 57 Ill.Dec. 312

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Steven Allen KEATH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16748.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Nov. 6, 1981.

Ronald C. Dozier, State's Atty., Bloomington, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, State's Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, James K. Horstman, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Alan L. Sternberg, Pratt, Larkin, Sternberg & Finegan, P.C., Bloomington, for defendant-appellee.

TRAPP, Presiding Justice:

The prosecution appeals from the order of the trial court which suppressed evidence in the form of various controlled substances seized during the "booking procedures" at the county jail following defendant's arrest upon the authority of a valid warrant.

The initial issue concerns the jurisdiction of this court within the context of Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1)(73 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(1)) as developed in People v. Young(1980), 82 Ill.2d 234, 412 N.E.2d 501, 45 Ill.Dec. 150.

On April 28, 1980, defendant filed a written motion to suppress evidence alleged to be in violation of his rights under the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and section 6 of article I of the Constitution of Illinois.At a hearing on October 23, 1980, the trial court ordered the evidence suppressed following his statement into the record of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

At the same time the court stated into the record that he would "not contemplate filing any written order unless the People indicate a desire to appeal.If they do, I will prepare a written order."The State's Attorney responded that he would advise the court on that day but his response does not appear in the record, and no written order was prepared by the trial judge.The prosecution filed a notice of appeal on October 31, 1980.

On April 20, 1981, the prosecution filed, in this court, a certificate that the order of suppression substantially impaired its ability to prosecute the case.On the same date the State's Attorney filed, in the circuit court, a written order of that date memorializing the judge's oral ruling of October 23 signed by the trial judge.A notice of appeal from that order was filed on April 20.The latter appeal is docketed in this court as our No. 17140.Neither record suggests that a certificate as required in People v. Young(1980), 82 Ill.2d 234, 412 N.E.2d 501, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, was presented to the trial court before either notice of appeal was filed in the circuit court.

Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) states that in criminal casesthe State may appeal from an order or judgment suppressing evidence.The trial court's order at issue had the effect of suppressing evidence upon the constitutional grounds of illegal search as distinguished from evidence excluded for statutory reasons, or under the rules of evidence.

We consider this record in the context of the colloquy concerning the entry of a written order by the trial court.Section 114-12(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 114-12(e)) provides:

"The order or judgment granting or denying the motion shall state the findings of facts and conclusions of law upon which the order or judgment is based."

The language of the statute does not state that a written order of suppression is required.As noted, the court stated findings of facts and conclusions of law into the report of the proceedings of the hearing, and thus effectively complied with the purposes of the statutory provision.

The trial court minute in the docket stated "Motion to suppress allowed.See the common law record."There was no express direction that a written judgment order be prepared and filed.The colloquy of the court with the State's Attorney and the contents of his minute suggest that the trial judge did not deem a written order to be required unless requested for the purposes of appeal.

In People v. Deaton(1974), 16 Ill.App.3d 748, 306 N.E.2d 695, andPeople v. Eddington(1978), 64 Ill.App.3d 650, 381 N.E.2d 835, 21 Ill.Dec. 508, the respective courts did not have occasion to discuss the requirement of section 114-12(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 114-12(e)) in the context of a statement into the record of proceedings of findings of fact and conclusions of law.In the absence of such consideration, it appears to have been assumed that the statute required that a written order be prepared.It is reasonable to conclude here that the trial court was acting upon that assumption.It is unnecessary to review those opinions where a written order was expressly required in the announcement of the court.

In People v. Young(1980), 82 Ill.2d 234, 412 N.E.2d 501, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, the supreme court further examined its constitutional authority to define the scope and the procedures for interlocutory appeals in criminal cases, saying:

"We hold, therefore, that Rule 604(a)(1) allows an interlocutory appeal by the State of a pretrial suppression order whenever the prosecutor certifies to the trial court that the suppression substantially impairs the State's ability to prosecute the case.Our intention in requiring this certification is not to formulate a standard by which courts may determine the appealability of a particular order."82 Ill.2d 234, 247, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, 163, 412 N.E.2d 501, 507.

As we read that opinion, the rationale for requiring certification by the State's Attorney is that the procedure of certification will in itself serve to deter improvident interlocutory appeals taken as an incident of courtroom tensions and the hurly-burly of advocacy.The merits of such determination by the prosecutor are not a matter for the trial court's consideration.

The opinion in Young makes the requirement of certification applicable immediately, but waives certification as to "any case currently in the appellate process."The opinion was announced on October 17, 1980, the order filed in this cause was entered on October 23, 1980, and the notice of appeal was filed October 31, 1980.As a practical matter, this appeal may be said to fall between the interstices of the requirement announced and the publication of the opinion which made the required procedure generally available to the bench and bar.

In People v. Norris(1981), --- Ill.App.3d ---, 428 N.E.2d 987, --- Ill.Dec. ---, this court determined that it had authority to review an interlocutory appeal where the prosecution first filed a notice of appeal and thereafter filed in the trial court the certificate required by Young.That opinion rejected the argument that an order suppressing evidence becomes appealable only after the certificate had been filed in the trial court.

While here the prosecutor's certificate was filed in the reviewing court after a rule to show cause, and while we agree that strict compliance with the requirement of Young requires filing in the trial court, we conclude that within the rationale of the latter opinion the purpose of the requirement has been satisfied.It cannot be said that this appeal has been filed upon an impetuous decision made in the course of trial conflict.The record now available shows the validity of the prosecutor's decision to appeal.

The opinion in Young carefully examines the policy factors supporting the need for interlocutory appeals from orders which exclude or suppress otherwise probative admissible evidence framed in part by the language:

"Refusing to allow interlocutory appeal from orders suppressing admissible evidence may seriously impair the State's ability to present its case.Society also has a broader, secondary interest in the coherent development of the law.As we noted above, without the guidance and uniformity imposed by reviewing courts, erroneous interpretations and rulings may proliferate at the trial court level.That proliferation is particularly troublesome when it is based on extrapolations from the statements or reasoning in prior appellate decisions which are interpreted to compel results in different circumstances which the prior appellate decision did not contemplate.In the absence of appeal, the reviewing court may have no opportunity to clarify its earlier decisions.(Citation.)The denial of review in a particular case may thus affect not only the ability of the State to prosecute a particular case but also its ability to prosecute similar cases in the future."82 Ill.2d 234, 246, 45 Ill.Dec. 150, 162, 412 N.E.2d 501, 507.

We find certain precedent in cases concerning rules requiring comparable certificates to be filed in the trial court.Supreme Court Rule 604(d)(73 Ill.2d R. 604(d)) requires counsel who represent defendants upon motions to withdraw a plea of guilty, to file with the trial court a certificate showing proper consultation with the defendant prior to the hearing.Each of the several appellate divisions have held that counsel's certificate filed in the reviewing court, or as a supplement to the record satisfied the purposes of the Rule.People v. Hummel(1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 1002, 365 N.E.2d 122, 7 Ill.Dec. 837;People v. Williams(1977), 52 Ill.App.3d 229, 367 N.E.2d 449, 10 Ill.Dec. 61;People v. Ward(1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 878, 371 N.E.2d 103, 13 Ill.Dec. 408;People v. Chesnut(1977), 47 Ill.App.3d 324, 361 N.E.2d 1185, 5 Ill.Dec. 657;andPeople v. Hultz(1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 663, 366 N.E.2d 897, 9 Ill.Dec. 386.

Again, Supreme Court Rule 651(c)(73 Ill.2d R. 651(c)) requires an attorney who represents a client on post-conviction proceedings to file a certificate that he has consulted with the client and has examined the record.In People v. Harris(1971), 50 Ill.2d 31, 276 N.E.2d 327, counsel failed to file the required certificate.The supreme court granted leave to file the attorney's certificate and finding compliance with the Rule affirmed the order.For the several reasons...