People v. Sandoval-Carrillo
2016 IL App (2d) 140332
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Gustavo Sandoval‑Carrillo was arrested after a car search allegedly uncovered cannabis; police filed a "Complaint for Preliminary Hearing" charging a felony.
- The assistant State’s Attorney later initialed/handwrote amendments on the complaint and presented a plea agreement: defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to deliver (Class 4) and received 24 months’ first‑offender ( 10) probation.
- Defendant was later deported and filed a postconviction petition alleging (1) the felony prosecution was void because no indictment or information by the State’s Attorney was filed initially, and (2) his plea was involuntary due to incorrect admonishments and ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration consequences.
- At an evidentiary hearing the trial court credited defense counsel’s testimony that he warned defendant about deportation and found defendant failed to prove prejudice from counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness; the court denied relief.
- On appeal the State argued lack of standing because defendant had been deported; the appellate court rejected that challenge for these claims and affirmed, holding (a) the amended complaint with the assistant State’s Attorney’s signature sufficed as an "information," and (b) any separate claim about deficient court admonitions was abandoned and in any event not meritorious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felony prosecution was void for lack of indictment or information | The assistant SA’s amendment and participation cured any defect; trial court had jurisdiction | Officer‑filed complaint (without initial SA initiation) never conferred jurisdiction; conviction void | The assistant SA’s amendments constituted an information; court had subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction; conviction not void |
| Whether plea was involuntary due to incorrect court admonitions about immigration | Court properly admonished defendant that deportation was possible | Court admonitions (and counsel’s assurances) misled defendant into pleading and violated due process | Claim was abandoned at trial level; record shows proper admonishment; issue not meritorious |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for misadvising about immigration consequences | SA notes counsel testified he warned defendant and urged immigration consultation | Defendant says counsel assured no immigration consequences and induced plea | Trial court credited counsel and found no prejudice; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether defendant lacked standing to bring postconviction petition because deported | State: deportation means not "imprisoned"; no standing | Defendant: petition presents voidness and preserved issues; sentence not fully expired when filed | Court rejected State s extension of Carrera; appeal properly before court and standing argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pankey, 94 Ill. 2d 12 (Ill. 1983) (police‑initiated prosecution void where State’s Attorney neither knew of nor acquiesced to prosecution)
- People v. Rolland, 221 Ill. App. 3d 195 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (officer‑initiated proceedings may be validated where State’s Attorney knew of and acquiesced)
- People v. Benitez, 169 Ill. 2d 245 (Ill. 1996) (failure to follow charging‑instrument statute does not deprive trial court of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (Ill. 2012) (subject‑matter jurisdiction derives from state constitution; justiciable controversy required)
- People v. Gilmore, 63 Ill. 2d 23 (Ill. 1976) (charging defects do not automatically divest court of jurisdiction)
- People v. Allen, 8 Ill. App. 3d 176 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972) (older authority holding charge defects could affect jurisdiction; distinguished and treated as outdated)
- People v. Carrera, 239 Ill. 2d 241 (Ill. 2010) (standing under Post‑Conviction Hearing Act requires present restraint by state; completed sentences limit standing)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (Ill. 2008) (monetary‑credit claims may be raised on appeal from postconviction denial)
- People v. Raczkowski, 359 Ill. App. 3d 494 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (defendant who appears in court cannot claim trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over him)