midpage
2014 IL App (3d) 90464
Ill. App. Ct.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Jorge A. Guzman (permanent legal resident) pled guilty to aggravated possession of stolen firearms and was immediately sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
  • At plea and sentencing hearings, the court did not give the §113-8 admonition about possible immigration consequences; the court later asked and Guzman stated he was a permanent resident.
  • Guzman moved to withdraw his guilty plea arguing the absence of the §113-8 admonition rendered the plea involuntary; the trial court denied the motion as the admonition was directory.
  • Guzman filed a postconviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of deportation risk; initial petition lacked an affidavit stating he would not have pled guilty; an amended affidavit was filed after notice of appeal.
  • The appellate court consolidated Guzman’s direct-appeal and postconviction appeals, affirmed denial of the plea-withdrawal motion, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of the postconviction petition due to unreasonable assistance by postconviction counsel in failing to timely present the prejudice affidavit.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether trial court’s failure to give §113-8 immigration admonition rendered plea involuntary Failure to give §113-8 admonition is directory and does not void plea The lack of admonition (and Padilla) rendered plea involuntary and prejudiced Guzman Affirmed: omission alone did not render plea involuntary (Delvillar controls); Guzman failed to demonstrate prejudice at the motion hearing
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise of deportation risk under Padilla No direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claim (facts outside record) Counsel’s failure to advise was deficient and can satisfy Strickland’s first prong per Padilla On postconviction record, prejudice could be shown (rational to reject plea because of deportation risk); this claim properly pursued in postconviction proceedings
Whether postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance under Rule 651(c) Postconviction counsel met obligations Counsel failed to include a timely, verified affidavit that Guzman would have rejected the plea Reversed: postconviction counsel’s assistance was unreasonable; remand for appointment of new counsel and further second-stage proceedings
Whether prejudice must include proof of likely trial success or actual deportation State: defendant must show he would have prevailed or been deported Guzman: need only show reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea (Padilla) — no actual deportation proof required Held: defendant need not prove deportation or likely acquittal; need show it would have been rational to reject plea (Padilla/Hill/Strickland framework)

Key Cases Cited

  • Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise of deportation risk when consequence is clear; failure satisfies first prong of Strickland)
  • People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009) (immigration consequences characterized as collateral; failure to admonish does not by itself render plea involuntary)
  • People v. Carrera, 239 Ill. 2d 241 (2010) (Padilla does not make deportation "imprisonment" under Post-Conviction Hearing Act; state lacks control over federal deportation)
  • Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (to show Strickland prejudice in plea context, defendant must show reasonable probability he would have insisted on going to trial)
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
  • United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (declining plea to avoid mandatory removal may be rational even if trial success is unlikely)
  • People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard for motion to withdraw guilty plea)
  • People v. Peque, 3 N.E.3d 617 (N.Y. 2013) (Padilla applied to hold trial courts must inform noncitizen defendants of deportation risk as fairness requirement)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Guzman
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois
Date Published: Dec 11, 2014
Citations: 2014 IL App (3d) 90464; 2014 IL App (3d) 090464; 24 N.E.3d 831; 3-09-0464
Docket Number: 3-09-0464
Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.
Log In