Find Legal Information

JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court:

Omar A., a minor, appeals the denial of his postadjudicationmotion to reconsider. We reverse and remand the cause forcompliance with Supreme Court Rules 604(d) and 605(b) (188 Ill. 2dRs. 604(d), 605(b)). .

The following facts are taken from the record. The Statefiled a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging, in part,that the minor committed various sex offenses. On May 11, 2001,the minor admitted the allegations contained in the petition, andthe court placed him on two years' probation and ordered the minorto register as a sex offender. See 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (2000). The minor then filed a motion to reconsider his sentence. However,no certificate was filed in accordance with Supreme Court Rule604(d). On July 31, 2001, the trial court denied the minor'smotion to reconsider. On April 10, 2002, however, the trial courtreleased the minor from the requirement that he register as a sexoffender. The minor then filed this timely appeal.

On appeal, the minor argues that the trial court failed toadmonish him regarding his right to appeal pursuant to SupremeCourt Rule 605(b) and that his counsel failed to file a certificatepursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d). The minor urges this courtto remand this case for compliance with both rules.

The State admits that defendant's attorney failed to file aRule 604(d) certificate and that the trial court failed to admonishdefendant in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 605(b). The Stateconcedes that ordinarily the State would confess error and thatremand would be warranted. However, in this case the State asks usto dismiss the case, claiming that noncompliance with Rule 604(d)is an "endemic" problem. The State argues that this generalproblem results in a great waste of time and energy for the Stateand that the best solution is to dismiss this appeal and otherslike it where defense counsel fails to file a Rule 604(d)certificate. The State argues that defendant can raise theseissues in a postconviction proceeding. The State also assertsthat, because the trial court released the minor from therequirement that he register as a sex offender, the minor has noissues to raise on the merits and that dismissal of this appealwould conserve judicial resources.

Although certain aspects of the State's argument ring true, webelieve the State's ultimate conclusion is without merit. TheState's arguments were previously raised and unequivocally rejectedby our supreme court. People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 34 (1994). It is well established that the remedy for noncompliance with Rule604(d) is a remand to the trial court for compliance. Janes, 158Ill. 2d at 33. In Janes our supreme court stated:

"[T]he remedy for failure to strictly comply with each of theprovisions of Rule 604(d) is a remand to the circuit court forthe filing of a new motion to withdraw guilty plea or toreconsider sentence and a new hearing on the motion." Janes,158 Ill. 2d at 33.

Therefore, in keeping with the well-settled law of this state, wereverse the trial court's denial of defendant's motion toreconsider sentence and remand this cause for compliance withSupreme Court Rule 604(d).

Contrary to the State's contention, the dismissal of thisappeal is not warranted. One of the purposes of Rule 604(d) is toprotect defendants from the ineffective assistance of counsel. SeePeople v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (1988). To dismiss this appealbecause of the patent and egregious ineffectiveness of counsel isabsurd. Since the State pays for the defense counsel, prosecutor,and judge in this case, perhaps they all should be concerned withconserving the State's resources and pay attention to the fact thata Rule 604(d) certificate was not filed. Additionally, because theJuvenile Court Act of 1987 was enacted with concern for the welfareof minors and the State's Attorney and the court are bound to actin furtherance of this purpose (705 ILCS 405/1--2(1) (West 2000);In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 219-20 (2002)), perhaps they shouldrefuse to proceed without a Rule 604(d) certificate in cases suchas this. In addition, the State's claim that the minor has noissues to raise because he no longer has to register as a sexoffender is pure speculation and ignores the purpose of SupremeCourt Rule 604(d).

For the reasons stated above, we deny the State's request forthe issuance of a certificate of importance in accordance withSupreme Court Rule 316 (155 Ill. 2d R. 316). Our supreme court hasmade its position clear, and we believe the appropriate solution isto resolve the matter through greater scrutiny by all parties inthe trial court rather than further appellate review of this well-settled issue.

The judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County isreversed, and the cause is remanded for compliance with SupremeCourt Rules 604(d) and 605(b).

Reversed and remanded.

GROMETER and KAPALA, JJ., concur.