Find Legal Information

Nos. 2--02--0019, 2--02--0020, 2--02--0021, 2--02--0022, 2--02--0023 cons.

JUSTICE KAPALA delivered the opinion of the court:

In this consolidated appeal, the minor, Vincent Y., appealsthe orders of the circuit court of Du Page County denying hismotions to reconsider the dispositions entered in five juveniledelinquency proceedings. We reverse and remand two of the causesfor compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 2d R.604(d)) and, as a consequence, we also find it necessary to reverseand remand the remaining causes.

The minor admitted committing several criminal offenses thatwere the bases for charges of delinquency in two originaldelinquency petitions filed in Du Page County case Nos. 01--JD--563and 01--JD--566. Upon the filing of three petitions to revokeprobation, the minor admitted violating his probation in Du PageCounty case Nos. 00--JD--656, 01--JD--247, and 01--JD--250, basedon his commission of the same offenses. After a sentencinghearing, the trial court entered simultaneously five separateorders committing the minor to the Illinois Department ofCorrections, Juvenile Division (JDOC), and admonished the minor asto his right to appeal in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 605(b)(188 Ill. 2d R. 605(b)). Thereafter, counsel for the minor filedmotions to reconsider the dispositions in all five cases but didnot file Rule 604(d) certificates. The trial court denied themotions to reconsider, and the minor filed a notice of appeal ineach case. We consolidated the appeals in this court.

Rule 604(d) provides in pertinent part:

"No appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guiltyshall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days of thedate on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court amotion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence isbeing challenged, or, if the plea is being challenged, amotion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.*** The defendant's attorney shall file with the trial courta certificate stating that the attorney has consulted with thedefendant either by mail or in person to ascertain defendant'scontentions of error in the sentence or the entry of the pleaof guilty, has examined the court file and report ofproceedings of the plea of guilty, and has made any amendmentsto the motion necessary for adequate presentation of anydefects in those proceedings." 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).

Rule 605(b) provides the admonitions the trial court is required togive a defendant when imposing sentence on a defendant who haspleaded guilty. People v. Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d 24, 27 (1998). Rule 605(b) complements Rule 604(d) and serves as a corollary tothe requirements of Rule 604(d). Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 27.

Compliance with the Rule 604(d) certificate requirement isrequired in juvenile proceedings. In re A.G., 195 Ill. 2d 313, 322(2001). The remedy for failure to comply with the certificaterequirement of Rule 604(d) is a remand to the trial court forcompliance. People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 33-34 (1994). Thiscourt recently remanded a juvenile delinquency cause for compliancewith Rules 605(b) and 604(d) where the trial court failed toadmonish the minor in accordance with Rule 605(b) and the minor'scounsel failed to file a Rule 604(d) certificate. In re Omar A.335 Ill. App. 3d 732 (2002). Therefore, in accordance with thewell-settled law of this state, we reverse the orders denying theminor's motions to reconsider the dispositions entered in case Nos.01--JD--563 and 01--JD--566 and remand those causes for strictcompliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d).

The minor acknowledges that, because he admitted violating hisprobation in the remaining three cases, his counsel was notrequired to file Rule 604(d) certificates in those cases. Nevertheless, the minor argues that we should remand those threecases as well.

In People v. Tufte, 165 Ill. 2d 66, 74-78 (1995), our supremecourt decided that the admission of a probation violation is notthe same as a guilty plea and does not require the defendant to beadmonished pursuant to Rule 605(b) of the need to file a motion towithdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment or toreconsider the sentence before appealing, although allowing thedefendant to file such motions is permissible. Similarly, becausethe filing of a motion to reconsider the disposition following aprobation revocation hearing in a juvenile delinquency proceedingis unnecessary before taking an appeal, compliance with Rule 604(d)is not required. In re J.E.M.Y., 289 Ill. App. 3d 389, 391 (1997).

The minor contends that, given the procedural posture of thecases in the trial court, it is inappropriate to remand only thecases involving original delinquency petitions for compliance withRule 604(d). In support of this contention the minor argues that(1) the trial court consolidated the minor's five cases duringadmissions, disposition, and the hearing on the motions toreconsider the dispositions; (2) any error by the trial court inthe proceedings below would necessarily extend to the casesinvolving the probation revocations; and (3) the practical effectof remanding only the two cases where admissions were made to the original delinquency petitions would be to affirm the entireconsolidated disposition, thereby depriving the minor of theprotection of Rule 604(d) by precluding any change in theconsolidated disposition despite any errors that might bediscovered by counsel's compliance with the mandatory Rule 604(d)procedures.

The State concedes that, under the current law in this state,case Nos. 01--JD--563 and 01--JD--566 must be remanded forcompliance with Rule 604(d). However, the State argues that, because the filing of a Rule 604(d) certificate is unnecessaryfollowing the admission to a probation violation, this appeal mustbe dismissed as to case Nos. 00--JD--656, 01--JD--247, and 01--JD--250.

To support his contention that all five cases should beremanded, the minor cites People v. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d 630(1998). In his brief, the minor mischaracterizes the holding inDavis as remanding for Rule 604(d) compliance two cases whereguilty pleas were entered and one case where a conditionaldischarge was revoked. The minor is correct in stating that allthree cases in Davis were remanded, but the conditional dischargerevocation case was not remanded for Rule 604(d) compliance. However, we believe that Davis does support the contention that allfive of the minor's cases should be remanded.

In Davis the defendant pleaded guilty, in consolidated cases,to three criminal offenses charged in Logan County case No. 97--CF--108 and to another criminal offense in case No. 97--CF--117,and she admitted violating her conditional discharge in case No.95--CF--138. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 630-31. The defendant'sadmission to a violation of her conditional discharge was based onthe facts supporting the guilty plea in case No. 97--CF--117. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 632. Thereafter, the defendant wassentenced to consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling 10years. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 631. The defendant's attorneyfiled a single motion to reconsider the sentences, but did not filea certificate of compliance with Rule 604(d). Davis, 298 Ill. App.3d at 631. The defendant appealed from the denial of her motion toreconsider the sentences.

On appeal, the Davis court identified the issues as (1)whether case Nos. 97--CF--108 and 97--CF--117 should be remandedfor failure to file a Rule 604(d) certificate, and (2) whether thedefendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in case No.95--CF--138 if the guilty pleas in the other two cases are vacated. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 631. The court first concluded "thatthe order denying the motion to reduce sentence in Nos. 97--CF--117and 97--CF--108 must be reversed and remanded for compliance withSupreme Court Rule 604(d)." Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 632. Withrespect to the second issue, the defendant argued that, if theguilty pleas in case Nos. 97--CF--108 and 97--CF--117 are vacated,she is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in case No. 95--CF--138in light of the consolidated sentencing hearing and the impositionof consecutive sentences. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 632-33.

By citing to People v. Kerkering, 283 Ill. App. 3d 867, 871-72(1996), the Davis court explained that on remand the defendant'scounsel must file a certificate of compliance and may stand on thealready-filed motion to reconsider the sentences, may file a motionto withdraw the guilty pleas, or may file a new motion toreconsider the sentences. Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 633. TheDavis court did not decide the second issue, concluding that "theconvictions [in case Nos. 97--CF--108 and 97--CF--117] have notbeen vacated and it would be premature to consider in this appealdefendant's argument about entitlement to a new sentencing hearingin No. 95--CF--138." Davis, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 633.

The Davis court contemplated the possibility of thedefendant's filing a motion to withdraw her pleas of guilty onremand even though she originally moved only to reconsider hersentences. Because a potential vacatur of the judgment andwithdrawal of the plea in case No. 97---CF--117 could have resultedin the need to conduct a new sentencing hearing in case No. 95--CF--138, the Davis court remanded that case as well.

Presumably, the defendant in Davis would have been affordedthe opportunity to file a motion to withdraw her pleas of guilty onremand because she had not been admonished in accordance with Rule605(b). See Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 31 (defendant who filed motionto reconsider sentence permitted to file motion to withdraw plea ofguilty on remand because he was not properly admonished pursuant toRule 605(b)). There is no indication that the defendant in Davisreceived Rule 605(b) admonishments.

In our case, however, the minor was admonished pursuant toRule 605(b) and, therefore, will not be permitted to change hismind and file motions to withdraw his admissions on remand. At theconclusion of the dispositional hearing, the trial court stated:

"Now, Vincent, by law, I have to advise you, you have theright to appeal the decision of this Court if you disagreewith it. To do that, you would have to file a written Noticeof Appeal within 30 days of today's court date. If asked, theCourt would actually appoint an attorney free of charge tohelp you do that. Likewise, the Court would provide you witha free copy of today's court proceedings and any necessaryearlier court proceedings. Before appealing, however, youshould do two things; one, file a motion to vacate your guiltypleas and admissions to the probation revocation petitions aswell as your guilty plea to the new charge. If I granted thatmotion, all those petitions and charges would go back tosquare one. That is, the State could prosecute any and allcharges that were dropped and you could fully defend againstthem. Also, you would be well advised to file a motion for meto reconsider my sentence; because if you appeal without firstfiling and arguing those things in front of me, anything thatmight have or could have been argued in those two motions willbe denied argument by the Appellate Court.

Do you understand that?"

In this case, unlike Davis, we know from the record that theminor was aware of the requirements of Rule 604(d). Because theminor was properly admonished that he could file motions toreconsider the dispositions and/or motions to withdraw hisadmissions and he filed only motions to reconsider thedispositions, the minor has forfeited his right to file a motion towithdraw his admissions. See Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 28 (defendantwaives issues regarding his guilty plea if he does not follow theRule 604(d) motion requirements). Moreover, the minor has nevercontended that his admissions were involuntary or that theadmission proceedings were otherwise defective.

However, in this case there is the possibility that on remand,after compliance with Rule 604(d), the trial court will grant theminor's motions to reconsider the dispositions entered in case Nos.01--JD--563 and 01--JD--566. We are faced then with the questionof what impact a potential modification of the disposition in caseNos. 01--JD--563 and 01--JD--566 will have on the dispositionsentered in case Nos. 00--JD--656, 01--JD--247, and 01--JD--250. Infashioning a sentence, the trial court "shall determine the properdisposition best serving the minor and the public." 705 ILCS405/5-705(2) (West 2000). In our view, this assessment processwould include considering the sentences imposed at the same hearingon other cases pending before the court.

As a consequence of the potential modification of thedispositions entered in case Nos. 01--JD--563 and 01--JD--566 onremand, we find it necessary to remand the three cases involvingrevocation of probation (case Nos. 00--JD--656, 01--JD--247, and01--JD--250) so that the trial court can adjust those dispositionsif it sees fit. Remanding the cases involving dispositions enteredafter the revocation of probation, along with the cases remandedfor Rule 604(d) compliance, is necessary because we cannot say forsure that the trial court would have chosen to commit the minor tothe JDOC pursuant to the petitions to revoke probation had it notdone so pursuant to the original delinquency petitions. We expressno opinion as to the merit of the minor's motions to reconsider thedispositions that have been filed thus far or that will be filed onremand.

As noted above, the State acknowledges that the current remedyfor failing to file a Rule 604(d) certificate is to remand thecause to the trial court for compliance. Notwithstanding thisacknowledgment, the State invites us to reconsider our holding inOmar A., and, in the alternative, the State renews its request forthe issuance of a certificate of importance pursuant to SupremeCourt Rule 316 (155 Ill. 2d R. 316).

In Omar A. we rejected the State's argument that dismissal isthe appropriate remedy where counsel fails to file a Rule 604(d)certificate. Omar A., 335 Ill. App. 3d at 733. In so doing weconcluded that the State's arguments were previously raised andunequivocally rejected by our supreme court in Janes. Omar A., 335Ill. App. 3d at 733. For those same reasons, we decline theState's invitation to revisit this well-settled issue, and we denythe State's motion for issuance of a certificate of importancepursuant to Rule 316.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments denying the minor'smotion to reconsider the dispositions in case Nos. 01--JD--563 and01--JD--566 are reversed, and the causes are remanded forcompliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d). As a consequence, thejudgments of the circuit court of Du Page County denying theminor's motions to reconsider the dispositions entered in case Nos.00--JD--656, 01--JD--247, and 01--JD--250 are also reversed, andthose cases are remanded as well.

No. 2--02--0019, Reversed and remanded.

No. 2--02--0020, Reversed and remanded.

No. 2--02--0021, Reversed and remanded.

No. 2--02--0022, Reversed and remanded.

No. 2--02--0023, Reversed and remanded.

CALLUM and GILLERAN JOHNSON, JJ., concur.