People v. Wright — Illinois appellate court upholds denial of guilty-plea withdrawal

Case
The People of the State of Illinois v. Kevin L. Wright
Court
Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District
Judge
Grischow (Illinois Supreme Court, 2024)
Date Decided
August 10, 2026
Docket No.
4-25-0905
Topics
Guilty pleas; Rule 604(d); Postplea counsel; Domestic battery
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Kevin L. Wright entered an open guilty plea to aggravated domestic battery after the State agreed to dismiss an unlawful-restraint count and charges in two other pending cases. The charge arose from allegations that Wright forced his girlfriend into a corner and covered her face with both hands, preventing her from breathing for about 30 seconds. The circuit court sentenced Wright to four years in prison.

After Wright alleged ineffective assistance by plea counsel, the court appointed new postplea counsel. Counsel filed an amended motion to withdraw the plea based on text messages the girlfriend sent Wright after the plea and asserted inconsistencies in her statements to police. The court denied the motion after considering the messages, counsel’s subsequently filed affidavit explaining their retrieval, the parties’ filings, and the record.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District affirmed. It held that postplea counsel strictly complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d), notwithstanding Wright’s claim that counsel should have raised ineffective assistance of plea counsel for allegedly not reviewing discovery with him. The omitted claim lacked merit because the girlfriend’s statements still alleged choking, and the later messages did not recant her accusation or establish that she lied. The record also showed Wright said he had reviewed the amended motion and that it included all of his claims.

The court also held that counsel’s affidavit adequately supported the out-of-record facts underlying the plea-withdrawal motion. Although counsel filed the affidavit the day after the hearing rather than with the motion, it was filed before the circuit court ruled, and the court considered the supported evidence. Rule 604(d) specifies no timing requirement for the affidavit, and the filing gave Wright a full and fair opportunity to present his claim.

Key Takeaways

  • A facially valid Rule 604(d) certificate stands unless the record rebuts counsel’s claimed compliance.
  • Postplea counsel need not add a meritless ineffective-assistance claim to satisfy Rule 604(d).
  • An affidavit supporting facts outside the record may satisfy Rule 604(d) if filed before the trial court decides the postplea motion.

Why It Matters

The decision applies Rule 604(d)’s strict-compliance standard in a practical way: strict compliance focuses on whether counsel adequately presented the defendant’s potentially meritorious claims to the circuit court, not on remand for an omission or timing issue that caused no meaningful defect in that presentation.

As a Rule 23 order, the decision is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top