People v. Easton

This case presents question as to whether, in context of defendant’s motion to reconsider his 10-year sentence for crime of aggravated unlawful possession of stolen motor vehicle (to which defendant had pleaded guilty), defense counsel had satisfied Rule 604(d) by stating that she had consulted with defendant “to ascertain his contentions of error in the imposition of the sentence or the entry of plea of guilty,” which was correct statement under Rule 604(d) at time it was made, rather than stating that she had consulted with defendant about his contentions of error and entry of guilty plea, as required under later amended Rule 604(d). Appellate Court, in vacating trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence, found that amendment to Rule 604(d) represented procedural change that applied retroactively to defendant, and that defense counsel’s statement had not complied with amended Rule 604(d). It also noted that defendant’s counsel did not assert that she had read transcript of sentencing hearing as required under amended Rule 604(d).