certification requirement in Illinois

2025People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 35 (1994).

2025Janes, 158 Ill. 2d at 33 ; Brown, 2023 IL App (4th) 220573, ¶ 30 .

2025The rule also provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “The defendant’s attorney shall file with the trial court a certificate stating that the attorney has consulted with the defendant either by phone, mail, electronic means or in person to ascertain defendant’s contentions of error in the sentence and the entry of the plea of guilty, has examined the trial court file and both the report of proceedings of the plea of guilty and the report of proceedings in the sentencing hearing, and has made any amendments to the motion necessary for adequate presentation of any defects in those proceedings.

2024The certification requirement furthers this purpose by enabling the circuit court to ‘ensure 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.’ (Emphasis in original.) [People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 16 ]. ‘ “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.” ’ [In re] H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Shirley, 181 Ill

2024The certification requirement furthers this purpose by enabling the circuit court to ‘ensure 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.’ (Emphasis in original.) [People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 16 ]. ‘ “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.” ’ [In re] H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Shirley, 181 Ill

2022The certification requirement furthers this purpose by enabling the circuit court to “ensure 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.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. ¶ 16. “ ‘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.’ ” H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 361 (1998)). ¶ 16 This court, in Pe

2019People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 344 (2007). ¶ 32 In Cox, we rejected the defendant’s similar claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding “the only way that defense counsel’s decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.

2019People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 344 (2007). ¶ 32 In Cox, we rejected the defendant’s similar claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding “the only way that defense counsel’s decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.

2025The certification requirement “enables the trial court to [e]nsure that counsel has reviewed the defendant’s claim and considered all relevant bases for the motion to withdraw the guilty plea [and/or the motion] to reconsider the sentence.” Linder, 186 Ill. 2d at 69 . ¶ 30 Strict compliance with these requirements is mandatory.

2011See also People v. Linder, 186 Ill. 2d 67, 69 (1999) (stating that, under Janes, “[wjhere counsel has not satisfied the rule’s certification requirement *** the cause must be remanded to the trial court to permit the filing of a new motion to reconsider and a new hearing on that motion” (emphasis added)).

2015People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27, 35 (1994). ¶9 In People v. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93 (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.

1998See Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d at 103-04 (recognizing that the rule works not only to protect defendants’ constitutional rights, but also to avoid abuses by defendants).

2025See, e.g., People v. Wyatt, 305 Ill.

2021See, e.g., People v. Wyatt, 305 Ill.

2018See Henderson, 2017 IL App (1st) 142259 , ¶ 181 (citing People v. Stechly, 225 Ill. 2d 246, 304 (2007)). ¶ 88 Lastly, the only way that defense counsel’s decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.

2017See Henderson , 2016 IL App (1st) 142259 , ¶ 181, 413 Ill.Dec. 239 , 77 N.E.3d 1046 (citing People v. Stechly , 225 Ill. 2d 246 , 304, 312 Ill.Dec. 268 , 870 N.E.2d 333 (2007) ). ¶ 88 Lastly, the only way that defense counsel's decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.

2014See Grace, 365 Ill.

2014See Grace, 365 Ill.

2002See Schumann v. Kumarich , 102 Ill.

2002See Schumann v. Kumarich, 102 Ill.

2002App. 3d 164, 167 , 570 N.E.2d 890, 892 (1991), this court refused to find that a defendant made a prima facie case for a rescission where the evidence showed that the breath instrument inspector failed to comply with the Vehicle Code and did not enter the certification test results into the logbook.

2002App. 3d 164, 167 , 570 N.E.2d 890, 892 (1991), this court refused to find that a defendant made a prima facie case for a rescission where the evidence showed that the breath instrument inspector failed to comply with the Vehicle Code and did not enter the certification test results into the logbook.

2024See People v. Cox, 2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 88 (“[T]he only way that defense counsel’s decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.” (Emphasis in original.)); People v. Johnson, 2019 IL App (1st) 161104, ¶ 32 (same).

2020People v. Manning, 241 Ill. 2d 319, 327 (2011). “[D]ecisions regarding what matters to object to and when to object are matters of trial strategy,” and “will typically not support a claim of ineffective representation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Macias, 2015 IL App (1st) 132039, ¶ 82 . ¶ 25 When considering a similar claim in Cox, we found that “the only way that defense counsel’s decision not to object to the certification could possibly be ineffective assistance was if defendant actually had a FOID card and the certification was in error.” (Emphasis omitted.) Cox, 2017 IL

2002In limiting its holding to the facts before it , the Nolan court stated : “[W]here, as here, the prefatory language of a candidate’s signature sheets sufficiently represents that all of the signers satisfy a particular certification requirement, it neither serves a useful purpose nor aids in preserving the integrity of the electoral process [citation] to exclude the candidate from participation for failure to demonstrate strict compliance with the relevant statutory provision.” Nolan , 329 Ill.

2002In limiting its holding to the facts before it, the Nolan court stated: “[W]here, as here, the prefatory language of a candidate’s signature sheets sufficiently represents that all of the signers satisfy a particular certification requirement, it neither serves a useful purpose nor aids in preserving the integrity of the electoral process [citation] to exclude the candidate from participation for failure to demonstrate strict compliance with the relevant statutory provision.” Nolan, 329 Ill.

2025“The certification requirement furthers this purpose by enabling the circuit court to ensure 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.” (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2024The certification requirement furthers this purpose by enabling the circuit court to ‘ensure 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.’ (Emphasis in original.) [People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329, ¶ 16 ]. ‘ “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.” ’ [In re] H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 10 (citing People v. Shirley, 181 Ill

2020The court further noted that the purpose of the certification requirement was to show actual compliance with the rule, rather than merely the “intent to comply.” Id.

2020See People v. Love, 385 Ill.

2019According to defendant, his absence “should not relieve counsel of her obligation to -3- comply with the certification requirement when she chose to file a post-judgment motion.” We disagree. ¶ 11 Whether Janes applies when the defendant is unavailable for consultation with counsel appears to be a question of first impression. “[T]o determine a judicial decision’s precedential effect in a subsequent case, a court must consider the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision.” Kelley v. Sheriff’s Merit Comm’n, 372 Ill.

2019According to defendant, his absence "should not relieve counsel of her obligation to comply with the certification requirement when she chose to file a post-judgment motion." We disagree. ¶ 11 Whether Janes applies when the defendant is unavailable for consultation with counsel appears to be a question of first impression. "[T]o determine a judicial decision's precedential effect in a subsequent case, a court must consider the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision." Kelley v. Sheriff's Merit Comm'n , 372 Ill.

1982See, e.g., People v. Hoffner (1981), 99 Ill.

1981Cf. People v. Hoffner (1981), 99 Ill.