People v. Carrera
2010 Ill. LEXIS 1558
Ill.2010Background
- Carrera pled guilty on June 28, 2004 to unlawful possession of less than 15 grams of a controlled substance and received 24 months' probation; probation completed June 26, 2006.
- After completion, INS detained Carrera on December 6, 2007 and instituted deportation proceedings based on the 2004 guilty plea.
- On January 18, 2008, Carrera filed a postconviction petition under 725 ILCS 5/122–1 et seq. alleging that counsel misadvised him about immigration consequences.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Court affirmed, both finding Carrera lacked standing under §122–1(a) because he was not imprisoned in the penitentiary at filing.
- The Supreme Court held Carrera had no standing under the Act since he had fully served his Illinois sentence, but discussed Padilla v. Kentucky and related authorities to analyze the broader question of relief and the effect of deportation on standing.
- The ultimate holding is that the appellate court’s dismissal was proper, and the petition cannot be pursued under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deportation consequences grant standing under the Act after sentence completion | Carrera argues Padilla contemplates standing. | State argues no standing once sentence fully served. | No standing; fully served sentence defeats §122–1(a) standing. |
| Whether Padilla changed the meaning of imprisonment for Act standing | Carrera argues Padilla overrides collateral/direct distinction. | State argues Padilla does not redefine imprisonment for Act purposes. | Padilla does not confer standing here; deportation not imprisonment under the Act. |
| Whether Warr or Sak should expand the Act's reach to postconviction relief | Carrera invokes Sak to broaden standing. | State argues Sak is not controlling; Warr is distinguishable. | Warr/Sak not adopted to extend standing; Dale/West control. |
| Whether the analysis should align with West, Rajagopal, and Mrugalla after Padilla | Carrera urges expansion based on deportation's impact. | State advocates traditional standing rule. | Court adopts West/Mrugalla/Resendiz line; deportation not imprisonment for standing. |
| Whether the relief is available under Warr-like supervisory authority | Carrera argues a remedy exists despite no standing. | Warr distinguishes misdemeanor context; not applicable. | Warr distinguishable; no extended remedy here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. West, 145 Ill. 2d 517 (1991) (postconviction not available where sentence fully served; imprisonment concept)
- People v. Dale, 406 Ill. 238 (1950) (imprisoned for purposes of §122–1; liberty constraint requirement)
- Martin-Trigona, 111 Ill. 2d 295 (1986) (relief available to those with liberty constrained by conviction)
- Pack, 224 Ill. 2d 144 (2007) (consecutive sentences; liberty interest for standing)
- People v. Farias, 187 Ill. App. 3d 879 (1989) (extension rejected; need actual liberty deprivation)
- People v. Sak, 186 Ill. App. 3d 816 (1989) (deportation considered a factor; willingness to allow petition)
- People v. Rajagopal, 381 Ill. App. 3d 326 (2008) (adopts narrower view consistent with Martin-Trigona; deportation not imprisonment)
- Mrugalla, 371 Ill. App. 3d 544 (2007) (deportation not by state imprisonment; limits of Act)
- People v. Warr, 54 Ill. 2d 487 (1973) (supervisory authority to remedy constitutional rights in misdemeanors)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. _ (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen of deportation risk; direct applicability limited to counsel duty; not changing standing)