People v. Guzman
2015 IL 118749
| Ill. | 2015Background
- In 2008 seven firearms were stolen; defendant found with five firearms from the burglary in a Joliet garage.
- Defendant was indicted for aggravated possession of stolen firearms, a Class 1 felony, with potential 4–15 year sentence.
- February 2009 defendant pled guilty to the firearm charge; court did not admonish immigration consequences under 113-8; defendant was a permanent resident.
- Defendant moved to withdraw the plea arguing lack of 113-8 admonishment; trial court and appellate proceedings followed, including postconviction petitions.
- Appellate court initially reversed then remanded; later decisions split, with Holdridge dissenting; this court granted leave to resolve whether Padilla overruled Delvillar.
- This court declines to overrule Delvillar, holds immigration consequences are collateral, and affirms the denial of a motion to withdraw the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla overruled Delvillar. | Guzman argues Padilla requires reversal. | Guzman argues Delvillar should be overruled in light of Padilla. | Delvillar not overruled; immigration consequences remain collateral. |
| Whether 113-8 admonishment is mandatory or directory. | Guzman contends lack of admonishment affects voluntariness. | State argues admonishment is not constitutionally mandatory. | Admonishment is directory; failure is a factor in prejudice inquiry, not automatic invalidation. |
| Whether immigration consequences are direct or collateral consequences of a plea. | Guzman relies on Padilla to treat deportation as direct. | Delvillar treats immigration consequences as collateral. | Immigration consequences remain collateral for fifth amendment due process purposes. |
| Whether Padilla’s reasoning applies to fifth amendment due process claims. | Padilla requires reversal of Delvillar. | Padilla does not compel reversal in fifth amendment context. | Padilla does not mandate reversal; sixth amendment reasoning does not govern this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (Ill. 2009) (admonishment under 113-8 is directory; immigration consequences collateral; prejudice standard governs withdrawal of plea)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (deportation advice not categorically removed from counsel's duties; sixth amendment standard applied)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (limits Padilla holding to Sixth Amendment context; direct-collateral divide discussed)
- People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365 (Ill. 1999) (knowing and intelligent plea based on direct consequences only)
- People v. Carrera, 239 Ill. 2d 241 (Ill. 2010) (recognizes direct vs collateral consequences framework in Illinois)