People v. Valdez
2016 IL 119860
Ill.2017Background
- Josue Valdez, a Dominican Republic citizen and U.S. resident alien, pleaded guilty to Illinois burglary and was sentenced to three years’ probation under a plea agreement.
- At the plea hearing the trial court, and an interpreter, admonished Valdez per Ill. S. Ct. Rule/§113-8 that conviction “may have the consequences of deportation,” and Valdez said he understood and pled guilty.
- Valdez later moved to withdraw his plea claiming ineffective assistance: trial counsel failed to advise him about immigration consequences (Padilla claim).
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the court’s own §113-8 admonition cured any counsel deficiency.
- The appellate court reversed, holding counsel was ineffective for not advising that burglary is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and therefore presumptively mandatory deportation.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, affirming the trial court: counsel’s omission was deficient but prejudice was cured by the trial court’s §113-8 admonition; moreover, whether burglary is a CIMT was not “succinct, clear, and explicit.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to advise Valdez pre-plea about immigration consequences constituted deficient performance under Padilla/Strickland | State: counsel not necessarily required to give more than general warning when law is unclear; court admonition suffices | Valdez: counsel failed to warn that burglary triggers presumptively mandatory deportation (CIMT), so performance was deficient | Court: Counsel’s failure to advise was constitutionally deficient (Padilla), but only a general warning was required because the immigration law here was not "succinct, clear, and explicit." |
| Whether Valdez was prejudiced by counsel’s omission (i.e., but for error he would have gone to trial) | State: no prejudice because the trial court’s §113-8 admonition informed Valdez and he still pled guilty | Valdez: would have rejected plea and gone to trial if warned of mandatory deportation risk | Court: no prejudice — §113-8 admonition cured any prejudice; Valdez knowingly proceeded after being warned by the court. |
| Whether burglary under Illinois law is a CIMT making deportation presumptively mandatory | Valdez: appellate court argued federal authorities show burglary (with intent to steal) is a CIMT | State: federal law and caselaw are unsettled and vary by crime definition; not clear-cut here | Court: not clearly established — CIMT designation is ambiguous and requires complex analysis; therefore counsel need only warn that plea may have immigration consequences. |
| Whether newly raised claims (bad plea bargaining; risk of aggravated felony on revocation) warrant relief | Valdez: raised these claims in his Supreme Court brief as additional ineffective-assistance grounds | State: issues were speculative and forfeited for not being raised in trial court | Court: forfeited and speculative; no relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen client about deportation risk; clear statutory removability requires correct advice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard in guilty-plea context: reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011) (categorical analysis and limits on using convictions to determine immigration consequences)
- People v. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d 235 (1994) (trial-court admonitions can cure prejudice from counsel’s incorrect advice)
- People v. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d 242 (1991) (thorough court questioning can negate reliance on counsel’s promises)