People v. Dominguez
64 N.E.3d 1191
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant (Jose A. Dominguez), a noncitizen brought to the U.S. as an infant, pled guilty in two Illinois cases; the principal one (No. 13-CF-219) charged armed violence predicated on aggravated battery.
- Counsel negotiated a plea in the armed-violence case at a Rule 402 conference; the court did not admonish defendant about possible immigration consequences and imposed intensive probation and jail time.
- Defendant had an ICE hold in jail and later faced removal proceedings after sentencing; he filed a postconviction petition claiming guilty-plea counsel ineffectively failed to advise him about deportation risk under Padilla v. Kentucky.
- At the evidentiary hearing, defendant testified counsel told him “not to worry” about the ICE hold and that he would likely go home; counsel testified he discussed immigration generally but denied telling defendant not to worry or that deportation would not occur.
- The trial court found counsel credible, concluded the immigration consequence was not a “truly clear” result requiring specific advice under Padilla, and denied the postconviction petition; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dominguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel violated Padilla by failing to advise that the plea would cause deportation | Counsel discussed immigration risk and advised strategically; Padilla requires specific advice only when deportation consequence is truly clear | Counsel never warned of deportation; instead told him he would be able to go home; had he known, he would have insisted on trial | Court held the immigration consequence was not "truly clear," so counsel needed only to warn that the plea "may carry a risk"; counsel met that duty |
| Whether the lack of statutory admonition (725 ILCS 5/113-8) independently requires relief | Failure to give statutory admonition does not alone establish constitutional error sustaining postconviction relief | Argues absence of admonition increases prejudice of counsel's inadequate advice | Court (and parties) treated statutory admonition failure as not independently reversible; it informs but does not change Padilla analysis |
| Prejudice and reasonable likelihood of different outcome if properly advised | No reasonable probability of a better outcome at trial given evidence and likely harsher sentence | If properly advised of deportation risk, defendant would have rejected plea and gone to trial | Court found defendant did not show ineffective assistance under Padilla prong 1 (no deficient performance); also noted defendant offered no plausible defense or likelihood of better result |
| Timeliness re: earlier conviction (No. 12-CF-230) | State: petition to challenge earlier conviction is time-barred | Defendant sought relief tied to both pleas | Court held the challenge to the earlier conviction was untimely and not before it on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients of immigration consequences; greater specificity required when consequence is "truly clear")
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance framework: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Guzman, 2015 IL 118749 (2015) (Illinois Supreme Court on limits of statutory admonitions and postconviction claims)
- People v. Valdez, 2015 IL App (3d) 120892 (2015) (discussion of aggravated-felony and categorical analyses in immigration context)
- Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (analysis of crimes involving moral turpitude and the categorical approach)
- United States v. Fish, 758 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (clarifies when an offense qualifies as a "crime of violence" for immigration purposes)