People v. Valdez
2015 IL App (3d) 120892
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Josue Valdez, a noncitizen, pled guilty to burglary predicated on theft in Bureau County and received 4 months jail plus 3 years probation.
- Defense counsel did not advise Valdez about specific deportation consequences of the plea; court separately admonished under 725 ILCS 5/113-8 that a conviction "may" have immigration consequences.
- Within 30 days Valdez filed to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective assistance for failing to advise about deportation and asserting actual innocence (claimed he found the jewelry).
- Trial court found counsel’s performance deficient (no advice given) but denied relief because the court’s own admonishments cured any prejudice.
- Appellate majority vacated and remanded, holding counsel had a Padilla duty to advise the specific risk of deportation (burglary predicated on theft is a CIMT), the deficiency prejudiced Valdez, and the statutory generic admonition did not cure prejudice.
- A dissent argued the deportation consequence was not sufficiently "clear" under Padilla, so the court’s generic admonition sufficed and no prejudice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Valdez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel breached Padilla duty to advise specific immigration consequences | Counsel not required beyond generic warning because statute text doesn’t explicitly list CIMTs | Counsel had duty to advise because minimal research would show burglary/theft is a CIMT and deportation was likely | Breach: counsel failed to advise; duty existed because consequences were sufficiently clear from case law |
| Whether Valdez suffered Strickland prejudice from deficient advice | Any deficiency was cured by the court’s section 113-8 admonition; no reasonable probability he would have rejected plea | Would have rejected plea and gone to trial to avoid presumptive deportation; also asserted possible innocence | Prejudice proven: reasonable probability he would have rejected plea; actual-innocence claim and plea colloquy support that conclusion |
| Whether the trial-court statutory admonition (725 ILCS 5/113-8) cures counsel’s error | Generic statutory admonition cured any deficiency; mirrors Padilla’s minimal-warning standard when consequences are unclear | Statutory admonition is generic and insufficient where consequences are "succinct, clear, and explicit"; counsel must give specific advice | Not cured: when consequences are clear (here, theft/burglary is a CIMT), generic admonition does not replace counsel’s obligation |
| Whether burglary predicated on theft here was a deportable offense (CIMT or aggravated felony) | Argued consequences unclear because the INA doesn’t define CIMT; thus counsel only needed to warn generally | Theft/burglary convictions are established CIMTs in federal law; aggravated-felony ground inapplicable because sentence imposed < 1 year | Aggravated-felony ground not met; burglary predicated on theft qualifies as a CIMT under prevailing federal authority, making deportation likely |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise re: immigration consequences; specific advice required when statute/case law makes consequences "succinct, clear, and explicit")
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324 (2005) (application of Strickland to guilty-plea challenges)
- People v. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d 235 (1994) (trial-court admonitions can sometimes cure counsel error)
- People v. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d 242 (1991) (same)
- United States v. Guzman-Bera, 216 F.3d 1019 (11th Cir. 2000) (term of imprisonment for aggravated-felony test is the sentence actually imposed)
- United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1999) (theft is a crime involving moral turpitude)
- Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2011) (addressing limits where burglary may not be a CIMT depending on statutory elements)