People v. Presley
2012 IL App (2d) 100617
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant James Presley pleaded guilty to count II of aggravated criminal sexual abuse; the court did not inform him that the plea would require lifetime sex-offender registration.
- Post-plea, Presley moved to withdraw his plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not warning about registration.
- Defense counsel claimed Presley was advised of collateral consequences but not the lifetime registration; Padilla had not yet been applied to registration.
- Sentencing included lifetime registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act; later, Presley sought withdrawal of his plea based on counsel's alleged deficiency.
- The trial court granted a directed finding in favor of the State, and Presley appealed; the appellate court affirmed, applying Padilla and Strickland standards and holding no prejudice shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s failure to advise about lifetime registration was deficient. | People argues no deficiency; registration is collateral. | Presley argues counsel failed to inform of a direct consequence. | No prima facie deficiency shown. |
| Whether Padilla applies to sex-offender registration as a consequence of a guilty plea. | State argues Padilla limited to deportation; not binding for registration. | Padilla governs collateral consequences and should apply. | Padilla applies to the prejudice inquiry; but prejudice not shown. |
| Whether Presley established prejudice under Strickland to withdraw the plea. | State asserts no reasonable probability of trial would change outcome. | Presley would have trial if informed. | Presley failed to show a reasonable probability of success at trial; no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. _ (U.S. 2010) (counsel must inform client about whether a plea carries a risk of deportation; applies to prejudice inquiry)
- People v. Hughes, 2011 IL App (2d) 090992 (Ill. App. (2d) 2011) (direct vs. collateral consequences; plea validity hinges on direct consequences)
- Correa v. People, 108 Ill.2d 541 (1985) (affirmative misstatement about collateral consequence invalidates plea)
- Edmonson v. People, 408 Ill. App. 3d 880 (2011) (misinformation preventing challenge to sentence; prejudice shown by lost right)
- Rissley v. People, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (2003) (ineffective-assistance standard for guilty pleas)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice depends on likelihood that trial would have succeeded; plea context)
- Hughes (post-Padilla context), 2011 IL App (2d) 090992 (Ill. App. (2d) 2011) (reaffirmation of direct vs collateral consequences analysis)