People v. Guzman, 962 N.E.2d 1182

Guzman was indicted for aggravated possession of stolen firearms and entered a negotiated guilty plea.
At plea, defense counsel and the court discussed the factual basis; Guzman initially contradicted, then corrected.
Before sentencing, the court asked Guzman if he was a U.S. citizen, and he stated he was a permanent resident.
Guzman was sentenced to four years with a recommendation for impact incarceration.
On March 6, 2009, Guzman moved to withdraw the plea arguing lack of immigration-consequence admonishment under 725 ILCS 5/113-8; the court denied.
On appeal, Guzman contends failure to admonish violated Padilla v. Kentucky and rendered the plea involuntary; deportation status and prejudice were briefed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Guzman’s plea involuntary due to no immigration admonition?	Guzman argues lack of Padilla warning invalidates plea.	Guzman argues trial counsel failed to inform of deportation risk.	Yes; prejudice shown; remand for further proceedings.
Did the 113-8 admonishment issue require reversal or prejudice analysis?	Delvillar directs that admonishments are directory but prejudice controls.	Admonishment failure can prejudice; need prejudice showing.	Prejudice shown here; remand appropriate.

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice and voluntariness in plea bargaining under Strickland standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Blommaert v. People, 237 Ill. App. 3d 811 (1992) (counsel’s duty to inform on maximum/minimum sentences in plea discussions)
Delvillar v. Illinois, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009) (immigration consequences are collateral; admonishment is directory but prejudice matters)
Orocio v. United States, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (prejudice inquiry in plea with immigration consequences)