|
People v. Travis, No. 5-97-0808 5th Dist. 12/15/98 |
Rule 23 Order filed
November 23, 1998;
Motion to publish granted
December 15, 1998.
NO. 5-97-0808
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
_________________________________________________________________
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD F. TRAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. Circuit Court of Richland County. No. 96-CF-70 Honorable Patrick F. McLaughlin, Judge,
presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE HOPKINS delivered the opinion of the
court: The defendant, Edward F. Travis, pleaded guilty to
first-degree murder and was sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment and to pay
expenses incurred by the victim's family as a result of defendant's actions. He
filed motions to withdraw the plea of guilty and to reduce sentence, which were
denied after an evidentiary hearing, with the exception that the portion of the
judgment order providing for restitution was vacated. Defense counsel filed his
certificate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (134 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)). The
notice of appeal was then filed. The only issue on appeal is whether this cause
should be remanded for further proceedings because the certificate was not filed
prior to the hearing. On July 2, 1996, a Richland County grand jury
returned a one- count indictment that charged defendant with first-degree murder
(720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 1996)). The indictment charged defendant with
driving an automobile into a pond, which caused the death of Eric Mack, who was
a passenger in the automobile. Mack was five years old at the time of his
death. On that same date the indictment was returned,
Kimbara G. Harrell was appointed to represent defendant. Larry D. Dunn was the
State's Attorney of Richland County. The Honorable Patrick F. McLaughlin
presided. On October 21, 1996, defendant pleaded guilty to
first-degree murder in exchange for the State's promise not to prove the age of
the victim. First-degree murder involving a victim under the age 12 requires a
natural-life sentence. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(c)(ii) (West 1996). On November 21, 1996, Judge McLaughlin sentenced
defendant to 40 years' imprisonment and found that defendant would have to serve
100% of his sentence. Defendant was also sentenced to pay the funeral expenses
of the child and $500 for the automobile. On the same date, a well-reasoned
judgment order was entered. On December 19, 1996, attorney Harrell filed a
motion to reconsider sentence, a motion to withdraw plea of guilty, and a motion
for transcript. The motion to reconsider sentence alleged that the sentence is
excessive as defendant will have to serve 100% of the sentence, excessive
considering the circumstances of the case, and excessive as defendant has no
means to pay the restitution. The motion to withdraw guilty plea alleged that
the plea was not voluntary because defendant is mildly retarded, has been
diagnosed as having adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and
conduct, and has limited comprehension. The motion further alleged that
defendant was under duress at the time of the plea. On December 30, 1996, Judge
McLaughlin ordered the preparation of the transcript. On May 8, 1997, defendant file a pro se
petition to withdraw guilty plea and vacate sentence, which alleged the
ineffective assistance of counsel. Sometime in early 1997, attorney Harrell became
State's Attorney of Richland County and Judge McLaughlin became a federal
administrative law judge. Allan F. Lolie of the State's Attorneys Appellate
Prosecutor of Springfield, Illinois, was appointed special prosecutor. On May 7,
1997, William R. Hoffeditz was appointed defense counsel. The Honorable John I. Lundmark presided at the July
30, 1997, hearing on the postplea motions. On August 13, 1997, Judge Lundmark denied the
postplea motions, with the exception that the restitution portion of the
judgment order was vacated. On September 11, 1997, attorney Hoffeditz filed his
Rule 604(d) certificate. On September 12, 1997, the notice of appeal was
filed. Defendant argues that defense counsel failed to
strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d) when he failed to file a
certificate of compliance prior to the hearing on the postplea motions and that,
therefore, this cause must be remanded for a new hearing on those motions. The
State responds that no remand is required, because the certificate of compliance
was timely filed as required by Rule 604(d) and, assuming, arguendo,
that the certificate was not timely filed, harmless error occurred. Rule 604(d) requires strict compliance. People
v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 362, 692 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (1998). The rule
plainly requires defense counsel to file a certificate that he or she has
reviewed the proceedings, consulted with the defendant, and made any amendments
to the motion necessary for an adequate presentation of any defects in the plea
proceedings. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 367, 692 N.E.2d at 1193. Strict
compliance requires the filing of the attorney certificate in the trial court.
Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 362, 692 N.E.2d at 1191. Although a literal
reading of the rule does not require that the certificate be filed prior to the
postplea hearing (People v. Shirley, 284 Ill. App. 3d 734, 738, 672
N.E.2d 1340, 1343 (1996), aff'd, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 692 N.E.2d 1189
(1998)), the filing should precede or be simultaneous with the hearing in the
trial court. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 371, 692 N.E.2d at
1195. The certificate functions to provide a basis upon
which the trial court can determine that the attorney has, in fact, performed
his duties under the rule, and it also gives the record a clear indication of
the extent of such performance, which otherwise might not adequately appear
thereon. Shirley, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 737, 672 N.E.2d at 1343. It takes
but a moment of the trial court's time to obtain the certificate, if the
certificate has not been filed prior to the postplea hearing, to obtain one from
an attorney who is then presently before it, thereby protecting the full measure
of defendant's interests. Any dispute involving the accuracy of the facts stated
in the attorney's certificate could be resolved and redressed by the trial
court. Shirley, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 737, 672 N.E.2d at 1343. In the case at bar, defense counsel strictly
complied with Rule 604(d). The certificate was filed in the trial court.
Hoffeditz's certificate states that he consulted with defendant in person and by
mail to ascertain defendant's contentions of error in both the sentence and the
plea of guilty. The certificate further states that Hoffeditz had examined the
trial court file and report of proceedings of the plea of guilty and made any
amendments to the motion necessary for an adequate presentation of any defects
in those proceedings. Therefore, this court concludes that there has been strict
compliance with the rule. Lastly, in the case at bar, defendant does not
attempt to argue how the proceedings would have been different if the
certificate had been filed prior to the hearing on the motion to reduce
sentence, does not attempt to argue that the full measure of his interests was
not protected, and does not attempt to argue that the certificate does not
comply with Rule 604(d). Nothing in the record on appeal suggests that the
public defender did not do what he certified that he had done. See
Shirley, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 738, 672 N.E.2d at 1343. Compliance with
the rule has been met. Based on the record on appeal, this court concludes that
if any error occurred in this cause, such error was harmless. Although supportive, but not cited by defendant, is
the recent case of People v. McCaskill, 298 Ill. App. 3d 260, 698
N.E.2d 690 (1998). In McCaskill, the court stated that counsel's Rule
604(d) certificate "must precede or be simultaneous with the hearing on the
motion in the trial court." McCaskill, 298 Ill. App. 3d at 267, 698
N.E.2d at 695. This court observes that the above-quoted statement in
McCaskill was not critical to the ultimate decision in that case. This
court declines for reasons previously stated in this opinion to require the
filing of the certificate prior to hearing in every case where an attorney's
certificate is necessary. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed. RARICK, P.J., and GOLDENHERSH, J.,
concurring.
THE PEOPLE OF THE
Appeal from the