People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817

Indictment in 1999 charged multiple sexual offenses; nol-pros on counts I–IV and VI, leaving counts V and VII–X pending and a civil-commitment petition filed.
Civil-commitment proceedings began in 1999; in 2000 a jury found Hughes to be a sexually dangerous person and ordered commitment.
In 2001 an administrative dismissal labeled the criminal matter as dismissed due to civil commitment; later appellate remand prompted new commitment proceedings, but the State pursued criminal charges.
In 2006 Hughes pled guilty to count VI (aggravated criminal sexual abuse of M.A.) under a negotiated deal: other charges were dismissed, the petition for commitment was withdrawn, and a 14-year sentence was imposed.
Two weeks after the plea, the Attorney General filed a petition to commit Hughes as a sexually violent person; Hughes moved to withdraw his plea, alleging lack of advisement about the SVP process and lack of jurisdiction due to nol-pros on count VI.
The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed the denial; Hughes sought review by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nol-pros on count VI deprived the court of jurisdiction to accept Hughes’ plea	Hughes contends the nol-pros stripped jurisdiction; the State argues jurisdiction remained.	Hughes argues the charge no longer existed and thus was not a valid basis for a plea.	No jurisdictional void; court validly entertained the plea.
Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary given potential SVP consequences	Hughes asserts he was not advised that the plea could lead to involuntary commitment.	Defense counsel and court failed to warn about SVP risk as a collateral consequence.	Plea not per se invalid; potential SVP consequence is a serious collateral issue that may require analysis under Strickland.
Whether filing a later SVP petition breached the plea agreement	State’s later SVP petition breached the negotiated terms.	No explicit promise not to pursue SVP; agreement focused on dismissal of other charges and sentence.	No breach; plea terms were fulfilled as negotiated.
Whether Padilla/6th Amendment require advising about SVP consequences in plea	Padilla imposes duty to warn about severe collateral consequences.	Counsel did not warn; duty may apply in this context.	Counsel owed a minimal duty to warn about possible involuntary commitment; defendant failed to prove deficient representation or prejudice.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. _ (2010) ( Sixth Amendment duty to advise on serious collateral consequences; deportation.)
People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (2009) (nolle prosequi and reinstitution of charges; procedure considerations.)
Watson, 394 Ill. 177 (1946) (nolle prosequi requires reinstitution or vacatur to proceed on same charge.)
Woolsey, 139 Ill. 2d 157 (1990) (reinstitution of nol-prossed charges; necessity of filing new instrument.)
Benitez, 169 Ill. 2d 245 (1996) (jurisdictional analysis when charging instrument defective but jurisdiction exists.)
Pankey, 94 Ill.2d 12 (1983) ( State’s charging discretion and jurisdictional reach.)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (defining prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea.)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard.)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (plea negotiations and counsel’s duties.)