People v. Dominguez

Digitally signed by
Reporter of Decisions
Illinois Official Reports Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and integrity
of this document
Appellate Court Date: 2016.12.07
08:47:41 -06'00'
People v. Dominguez, 2016 IL App (2d) 150872Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Caption JOSE A. DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No. Second District
Docket No. 2-15-0872
Filed October 18, 2016
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County, No. 12-CF-230,
Review 13-CF-219; the Hon. Sharon L. Prather, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Francisco J. Botto, of Botto Gilbert Gehris Lancaster, P.C., of Crystal
Appeal Lake, for appellant.
Louis A. Bianchi, State’s Attorney, of Woodstock (Lawrence M.
Bauer and Marshall M. Stevens, of State’s Attorneys Appellate
Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Panel JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Justice Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Hutchinson specially concurred, with opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Defendant, Jose A. Dominguez, appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction
relief. He asserted that, prior to his guilty pleas in two cases, counsel had failed to adequately
discuss the possible adverse immigration consequences of the pleas and that as a result, under
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), counsel was ineffective. Defendant does not
challenge the court’s ruling that his petition was too late as to the earlier of the two cases. We
affirm the petition’s denial, holding that, under the branch of the Padilla standard that applies
when “the law [was] not succinct and straightforward,” counsel here needed do no more than
advise defendant that the pleas might “carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.”
Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369. We conclude that the record shows that defendant was adequately
alerted to the possibility of adverse immigration consequences.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 Defendant sought relief from the guilty pleas he entered in two cases, No. 12-CF-230 and
No. 13-CF-219. The issues in the appeal arise primarily from the second case, in which a grand
jury returned a four-count indictment against defendant.
¶4 The charges in that second case were one count of armed violence (720 ILCS 5/33A-2(a)
(West 2012)) predicated on aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (West 2012)) (battery
causing bodily harm on a public way, the weapon being a baseball bat—a category III
weapon); two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a)(1), (c) (West 2012))
(battery causing great bodily harm, battery on a public way); and one count of mob action (720
ILCS 5/25-1(a)(1) (West 2012)) (knowing use of force or violence by two or more persons to
inflict injury). The charges related to an incident that occurred on January 26, 2013, in which
Patrick R. Heubner was the victim.
¶5 The first case, No. 12-CF-230, arose from a March 13, 2012, incident in which one person
in a group of three threw a rock that went through a car window, striking an occupant of the
car. In that incident, defendant was charged with four counts of mob action, one count of
criminal damage to property under $300 (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1), (d)(1)(B) (West 2012)), and
one count of endangering the life of a child—a passenger in the car (720 ILCS 5/12C-5(a)
(West 2012)).
¶6 Defendant had retained counsel—the same person—in both cases.
¶7 On December 3, 2012, defendant entered a guilty plea in case No. 12-CF-230 under a fully
negotiated agreement; he pled guilty to criminal damage to property, with an agreed sentence
of one year’s conditional discharge and a fine of $500. Defendant did not receive an
admonition of possible immigration consequences in that case.
¶8 On June 13, 2013, after a conference under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 (eff. July 1,
2012), defendant entered a guilty plea in case No. 13-CF-219. The State agreed to dismiss all
counts except the first, armed violence. It further agreed not to petition to revoke defendant’s
conditional discharge. The court told defendant that armed violence was “a Class 2 felony with
a sentencing range of three to seven years ***, fines not to exceed $25,000, and two years
mandatory supervised release,” and it further admonished him that there was no agreement
about his sentence. According to the factual basis, defendant, while on a public way, struck
-2-
Heubner with a baseball bat, causing him injury. Again, the court did not admonish defendant
of the possibility of immigration consequences of his plea.
¶9 Defendant’s sentencing hearing took place on August 7, 2013. The State presented
evidence of defendant’s affiliation with the Latin Kings: he wore gang colors, had been
photographed making gang signs, and had gang-associated tattoos. The court noted that
defendant had “one of the worst past histories that the Court has seen based upon the amount of
arrests and contacts.” The court imposed two years’ intensive probation, 180 days in jail, 200
hours of public-service work, and other conditions.
¶ 10 On January 29, 2015, defendant filed a petition for relief under the Post-Conviction
Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014)). New retained counsel filed the petition
for him; the petition largely duplicated an earlier petition for postjudgment relief that his
immigration counsel had filed. Defendant stated that he was born in Mexico but that his
parents had brought him to the United States when he was eight months old and he had not
been to Mexico since. As a result of his armed-violence conviction, he was facing deportation.
He asserted that, because his guilty-plea counsel had failed to advise him that the conviction
would likely result in his deportation, counsel’s assistance had fallen below the effectiveness
standard set out in Padilla.
¶ 11 The petition was ambiguous as to which of the two branches of the Padilla standard
defendant was claiming applied to guilty-plea counsel. Padilla addresses how the first prong of
the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), is applied to a case involving a noncitizen facing deportation as a result of a guilty plea.
Under Strickland, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy two prongs. First,
counsel’s representation must have fallen “below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. Second, there must have existed “a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that, to provide effective
assistance to a noncitizen defendant, defense counsel must satisfy a limited but positive duty to
advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The specifics of the
duty depend on how clear it is that the conviction will result in deportation. “When the law is
not succinct and straightforward *** a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a
noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration
consequences.” Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369. However, “when the deportation consequence is
truly clear ***, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.” Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369. In
Padilla, section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) of title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006)) explicitly made the defendant deportable as a result of his guilty
plea, and thus defense counsel had an affirmative duty to correctly advise the defendant of that
consequence. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 369-71. Defendant here asserted in his petition that counsel
never warned him of the “possible deportation consequences of pleading guilty.” Instead,
counsel told him that his plea in the armed-violence case would allow him to return home. He
further asserted that “but for his counsel’s assurances he would be released after the criminal
proceedings ended, [he] would not have pled guilty,” and he “maintain[ed] his innocence to
both offenses.” He did not elaborate on his claim of innocence or his chances of success.
Attached to the petition was a letter to the court from defendant. It stated that he entered the
plea because he was told he would be able to go home on intensive probation and that, had he
-3-
known that the conviction would make him deportable, he would have insisted on going to
trial.
¶ 12 The State filed a response to the petition, asserting, based on guilty-plea counsel’s
affidavit, that counsel had spoken to defendant about the deleterious immigration
consequences of the conviction. Defense counsel averred that he knew that defendant “had an
immigration hold” (elsewhere called an “ICE hold,” because such a hold is implemented at the
request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) before the negotiated plea and was
aware that there would be possible adverse immigration consequences of the plea. He “advised
and warned [defendant] about the potential consequences and possible outcomes of a plea of
guilty to *** Armed Violence.” Neither the response nor the affidavit specifically detailed
what counsel had told defendant.
¶ 13 The matter went to an evidentiary hearing. Defendant testified that he was 21 years old and
had been in the McHenry County jail for a year and nine months on an ICE hold. He was not a
United States citizen but had arrived in the United States when he was eight months old. He
had never been outside the United States since his arrival. At some time after his arrest in case
No. 13-CF-219 but before his guilty plea, he “talked to a representative of ICE, [who] faxed
[him] a paper saying [that he] had an ICE hold.” “[His] understanding was [that the hold] had
to do with [his] immigration status.” The representative also asked him about his “affiliation,”
meaning his gang affiliation. He was in custody in the McHenry County jail when his family
retained guilty-plea counsel to represent him. In their first meeting, via video link, he and
counsel discussed the charges and the ICE hold. Counsel told him “to not worry” about the
hold, a discussion that took a few seconds in a conversation lasting about half an hour.
Defendant described each meeting that he had had with counsel; no further discussion of
immigration consequences took place until counsel spoke to him in a holding cell to tell him
that counsel and the State had a possible plea agreement. By his understanding, the terms
included intensive probation, finishing his GED, and participating in anger-management
classes. At that time, defendant asked what was going to happen with his ICE hold if he entered
the plea. Counsel told him “to not worry about it, everything’s going to be fine. I would be
home.” Defendant further testified that he had told counsel that he was innocent but that
counsel said that he did not believe him. No more meetings took place before defendant’s plea.
On cross-examination, he estimated that counsel had told him three times not to worry about
the ICE hold.
¶ 14 Immediately after defendant’s sentencing, his custody was “switched over to” ICE, and a
deportation hearing was scheduled. Defendant lost at the hearing and was on his “second
appeal.”
¶ 15 At no time did defendant testify that he was unaware that the conviction would make him
deportable. Further, he did not testify to the position that he took in his letter to the court: that
he entered the plea because he was told he would be able to go home on intensive probation
and that, had he known that the conviction would make him deportable, he would have insisted
on going to trial.
¶ 16 Defendant’s immigration attorney testified on his behalf. She said that a conviction of
armed violence would make a person “eligible for mandatory deportation.” After his
conviction, defendant could have waived his right to a hearing, and he would have been
deported in about six weeks.
-4-
¶ 17 Guilty-plea counsel testified for the State. He said that, when he had a client in custody and
on an ICE hold, he would “try to balance the situation of custody as opposed to facing ICE
depending on what the charge is and depending on what the likelihood is of ICE maintaining
their hold.” Asked, “Do you inform your clients that there could be negative or adverse
consequences by entering a plea of guilty[?],” counsel answered, “I certainly try to.” Asked if
he spoke to defendant about “potential Immigration consequences,” counsel said, “Yes.”
Asked specifically if he advised defendant that there would be possible adverse immigration
consequences of pleading guilty, counsel responded:
“Well, we had—[defendant] was between a rock and a hard place. The offer was
for intense probation with time served. The alternative would be to go to trial on
a—what would have been a mandatory for him because of his record and because of the
gang activities.
And we discussed the probability of winning at trial as opposed to taking the plea.
And I advised him that if he took the plea, he would at least be fighting ICE on
probation as opposed to a person who is in the Department of Corrections.
He had zero kind of choices. It was not a good situation.”
¶ 18 Asked, “What specifically did you advise [defendant] on in regards to the adverse possible
consequences of Immigration?” counsel responded, “I’m not sure so much as far as the
adverse, but as a positive to pleading guilty and being on probation as opposed to going to trial.
And my—My feeling was, as a somewhat experienced defense attorney, that they would have
convicted him.” Counsel continued to describe what he thought would have happened if
defendant had gone to trial, and he expressed hope that immigration reform might come to
defendant’s aid. Asked if defendant understood what counsel told him, counsel said, “Yes.
He’s a sharp kid.” Asked if he had ever told defendant not to worry about his immigration
status, counsel responded: “No, I never said don’t worry about it. I said let’s take one thing at a
time. First let’s see where we’re at with the case.” He said that “[i]t would have been several”
times that he talked to defendant about immigration.
¶ 19 Counsel said that defendant had initially maintained his innocence in the armed-violence
incident and that, initially, counsel thought that he could call witnesses who would support
defendant’s claim. However, as discovery unfolded, he concluded that “we would not be able
to get a not guilty verdict.” He said that he never would tell a client that he did not believe him;
he would tell a client that “you try the facts.” He did not recall ever telling defendant not to
worry—that he would be able to go home.
¶ 20 The State repeatedly tried to get counsel to say that he had advised defendant that he was at
risk of deportation; counsel unequivocally testified that he had not:
“Q. *** You did know that [defendant] had an Immigration hold, correct?
A. Correct.
***
Q. *** Specifically what did you tell him that that meant?
***
Q. Did you explain to him what that meant or what the potential was?
***
A. I don’t recall doing that. He seemed to know as much as I did about that.
-5-
What I told him was I was hoping with the view of the Administration—current
Obama Administration was taking with the ICE, that his specific situation—that he
would have a better handle on the ICE judge than he would have from Department of
Corrections.
***
Q. Did you generally speak to him about what an ICE hold meant in terms of
proceeding forward with the case?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that somebody with an ICE hold can be deported?
A. Yes.
***
Q. And are you aware that people can be deported as a result of pleading guilty to
any offense?
A. Yes, yes, correct.
Q. *** Did you advise [defendant] of that?
A. I had many illegals, from petty offenses to misdemeanors to felonies, and you
have to balance where you’re at in the criminal law first is my advice and then worry
about ICE later.
And it’s depending—That’s why I didn’t advise going to trial where I thought there
would be a guilty finding because I thought it would be harder to face the ICE judge
with a prison sentence as opposed to intense probation sentence that I thought he would
be doing well on.
Q. Did you advise him that deportation was a possibility as a result of the plea?
A. I assumed he knew that. We didn’t discuss that, no.
Q. Did you discuss the possible deportation with him at any time?
A. I don’t think we ever mentioned the word deportation, but, I mean, just assumed
that he was talking to me about it, he knew that was a consequence.” (Emphases
added.)
¶ 21 During defendant’s cross-examination of counsel, counsel admitted that he had no
independent recollection of what he said to defendant during their consultations. He agreed
that defendant had denied being present during the incident that led to the armed-violence
charge. Asked about his strategy, he said that his greatest concern was defendant “spending the
least time in custody he could.” Asked if he told defendant that he would go home after he
served the jail sentence to which he agreed, counsel said that he had told defendant only that he
hoped that defendant would go home.
¶ 22 The court issued a decision denying defendant’s petition:
“The Court finds that Defendant’s testimony lacks credibility and is contradicted
by the testimony of [counsel] and the Court record herein. ***
[Counsel] testified at hearing that he had known Defendant for an extended period
of time. He testified that he was aware that Defendant had an ICE hold placed on him
and that he had spoken with Defendant about it on several occasions. He denied that he
ever told Defendant not to worry about it. [Counsel] testified that he felt that the
Defendant was ‘between a rock and a hard place.’ [Counsel] was of the opinion, based
-6-
upon his investigation and discovery in the case, that if Defendant went to trial, he
would be convicted and if that happened, he was certain, based upon Defendant’s past
problems and extensive criminal history, he would be sentenced to prison. He further
testified that after having participated in a 402 Conference *** with the State and the
Court, he advised Defendant that if he plead [sic] guilty, he would have a better chance
of defending against the ICE hold while on probation, then [sic] if he was attempting to
do so while in prison. [Counsel] further testified that while he advised Defendant it
would not be in his best interest to go to trial, he was always willing to do so. However,
the choice to do so or not was the Defendant’s to make. [Counsel] did not prohibit
Defendant from proceeding to trial. Counsel gave strategic advice, Defendant listened
to that advice, and Defendant chose to plead guilty.
The Court finds the testimony of [counsel] to be credible and his advice given to
Defendant to be within the range of competence demanded of an attorney in criminal
cases. A plea based on reasonable, competent advice is an intelligent plea, not open to
attack on the grounds that counsel erred in his judgment. [Citations.] Going to trial in
this case would not have spared Defendant of the effect of deportation if he were
convicted, which was likely, and would also have subjected him to the possibility of a
greater term of imprisonment, which was also likely. While Defendant made a bare
assertion he was innocent, he offered no evidence as to a plausible defense that could
have been raised at trial.”
¶ 23 The court also stated that counsel had testified that “Defendant was not a U.S. citizen, but
had come to this country illegally at a very early age.” It ruled that defendant was no longer in
custody on the criminal-damage-to-property conviction and that, as a result, the petition was
too late to challenge that conviction.
¶ 24 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that Padilla required counsel to tell
defendant specifically that the plea would make him deportable. Defendant did not challenge
the court’s finding that he was an illegal immigrant. The court denied the motion, and
defendant timely appealed.
¶ 25 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 26 On appeal, defendant argues first that the court’s failure to admonish him, pursuant to
section 113-8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/113-8 (West
2012)), about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea was a basis for granting his
petition. He further argues that guilty-plea counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise
defendant pursuant to Padilla that his guilty plea would make his deportation all but inevitable:
he argues that counsel could have easily learned that an armed-violence conviction usually
results in mandatory deportation and that, once defendant entered his plea, “he did not have
any chance” of avoiding deportation. (Emphasis in original.) Defendant does not challenge the
court’s conclusion that the attack on the criminal-damage-to-property conviction came too
late.
¶ 27 The State responds that, under the rule in People v. Guzman, 2015 IL 118749, ¶¶ 22-32, a
court’s failure to give the “advisement” set out in section 113-8 does not result in a deprivation
of constitutional rights so as to sustain a postconviction petition. As to the Padilla claim, the
State argues that counsel’s testimony made clear that he discussed the immigration
consequences of a guilty plea, that counsel’s advice was not demonstrably wrong, and that, in
-7-
any event, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice. It argues that here, and in contrast to the
facts in Padilla, it was not clear that the conviction would subject defendant to mandatory
deportation.
¶ 28 In his reply, defendant concedes that a failure to give section 113-8 admonishments is not
an independent basis for reversal, but he argues that the lack of the admonishments makes the
lack of proper advice more likely to be prejudicial. On the issue of which branch of the Padilla
standard applies, defendant, citing section 1227(a)(2)(A), asserts, “A quick perusal of federal
immigration law would have told [counsel] that [defendant’s] pleas would make him eligible
for deportation under at least two categories—aggravated felonies, and crimes involving moral
turpitude.”
¶ 29 We affirm the denial of the petition. As we noted above, Padilla sets out different standards
for guilty-plea counsel representing a noncitizen, depending on whether deportation is a truly
clear consequence of the plea. We hold that, here, “the law [was] not succinct and
straightforward,” and therefore counsel “need[ed] do no more than advise a noncitizen client
that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” Padilla,
559 U.S. at 369. The ICE hold here alerted defendant to the general risk of adverse
immigration consequences, leading defendant to raise the issue with counsel, who responded
in a manner that acknowledged the risk.
¶ 30 The court here denied defendant’s petition at the third stage of postconviction proceedings,
after an evidentiary hearing. In the third stage of proceedings, as in the second stage, the
defendant has the burden of making a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. People
v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). When a court denies a postconviction petition after
an evidentiary hearing that required the court to make findings of fact and credibility
determinations, our review of the decision is for manifest error. People v. English, 2013 IL
112890, ¶ 23. However, when the issues are purely ones of law and do not turn on special
knowledge of the trial, our review is de novo. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 473.
¶ 31 The substantive issue here is whether counsel’s advice was what was required by Padilla.
The parties dispute which of the two branches of the Padilla standard applies. Defendant
asserts that armed violence is clearly both an aggravated felony and a crime involving moral
turpitude such that it was truly clear that under section 1227(a)(2) defendant became
deportable by virtue of his guilty plea. The State implies that the result is truly clear only when
section 1227(a)(2) explicitly lists the offense at issue. Case law indicates that, where counsel
can determine by limited research beyond the text of section 1227(a)(2) that an offense makes
an alien deportable, the effect of the conviction remains truly clear. E.g., People v. Valdez,
2015 IL App (3d) 120892, ¶ 22; State v. Gaitan, 37 A.3d 1089, 1113 (N.J. 2012). Defendant
has not shown that the consequences were clear. Indeed, he has completely failed to explain the
analysis that leads to his conclusion that deportation was a “truly clear” (Padilla, 559 U.S. at
369) consequence of his plea.
¶ 32 A conviction of an “aggravated felony” makes an alien deportable. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2012). From section 1101(a)(43)(F) (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2012)),
we learn that an “aggravated felony” includes “a crime of violence (as defined [in another
section] ***) for which the term of imprisonment at [sic] least one year.” From the cited
section, we learn that a “crime of violence” includes “an offense that has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”
18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2012). “Physical force” means “violent force,” so that armed violence
-8-
predicated on aggravated battery is a crime of violence, but only when the predicate battery
was battery causing bodily harm. (Emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted.)
United States v. Fish, 758 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (an offense with elements satisfied by mere
touching is not a violent crime). However, that does not address the requirement that the term
of imprisonment be a year or more; it appears that the relevant term is the term actually
imposed, not the statutorily available sentence. Valdez, 2015 IL App (3d) 120892, ¶ 18 (citing
United States v. Guzman-Bera, 216 F.3d 1019, 1021 (11th Cir. 2000)).
¶ 33 A crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) can make an alien deportable if, among other
things, it is an offense “for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2012). “Moral turpitude is a notoriously difficult phrase to define.”
Valdez, 2015 IL App (3d) 120892, ¶ 21. According to a Board of Immigration Appeals
discussion quoted as persuasive in Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2014):
“ ‘[A] finding of moral turpitude involves an assessment of both the state of mind and
the level of harm required to complete the offense. Thus, intentional conduct resulting
in a meaningful level of harm, which must be more than mere offensive touching, may
be considered morally turpitudinous. However, as the level of conscious behavior
decreases, i.e., from intentional to reckless conduct, more serious resulting harm is
required in order to find that the crime involves moral turpitude. Moreover, where no
conscious behavior is required, there can be no finding of moral turpitude, regardless of
the resulting harm.’ ” Ceron, 747 F.3d at 783 (quoting In re Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239,
242 (B.I.A. 2007)).
The offense is analyzed categorically; the analysis is of the statute defining the offense and not
of the facts of the underlying conviction. Ceron, 747 F.3d at 780. We will not proceed further
with this analysis; as should now be clear, it could not possibly be deemed straightforward.
Moreover, neither party has explained how the analysis would proceed for an offense like
armed violence, whose character changes greatly depending on the predicate offense. One
logical result would make whether the offense is a CIMT turn on whether the predicate battery
underlying the armed-violence conviction involved bodily harm, but that result is in no way
obvious.
¶ 34 Based on these analyses, we conclude that the immigration consequences of defendant’s
conviction were not truly clear. Thus, counsel’s only obligation under Padilla was to warn
defendant of possible adverse immigration consequences. We deem counsel to have met that
obligation. Defendant’s questions to counsel show that defendant was already aware of the
possibility of deportation—he could scarcely have avoided such awareness, given the ICE
hold. To satisfy his duty, then, counsel needed only to agree with defendant’s conclusion that
deportation was a concern. Accepting as we must the trial court’s determinations of fact,
counsel did this. The court found that counsel told defendant that he would have a better
chance defending against “the ICE hold” while on probation than in prison. Although counsel
would have more clearly met his obligation if he had discussed defending against deportation,
he nevertheless acknowledged that defendant was facing significant immigration difficulties.
Moreover, counsel’s desire to get a sentence of probation had a reasonable legal basis. The
sentence actually imposed might have determined whether defendant was convicted of an
aggravated felony. Given the complexity of the CIMT analysis, avoiding that clear basis for
deportation was a reasonable consideration.
-9-
¶ 35 Because defendant failed to show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness under the applicable branch of the Padilla standard, defendant
failed to meet his burden of proving that counsel was ineffective. The trial court thus did not err
in denying his postconviction petition.
¶ 36 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 37 For the reasons stated, we affirm the denial of defendant’s postconviction petition. As part
of our judgment, we grant the State’s request that defendant be assessed $50 as costs for this
appeal. 55 ILCS 5/4-2002(a) (West 2014); see also People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166, 179
(1978).
¶ 38 Affirmed.
¶ 39 JUSTICE HUTCHINSON, specially concurring.
¶ 40 I concur in the analysis and outcome of the majority opinion in this case. I write separately
to remind the lawyers who choose to travel through these immigration minefields that state law
and federal law are miles apart in both substance and procedure where immigration matters are
concerned.
¶ 41 First and foremost, the lawyer must be familiar with the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct of 2010. In particular, the Preamble states:
“As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a
lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and
obligations and explains their practical implications. *** As an evaluator, a lawyer acts
by examining a client’s legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.”
Ill. R. Prof’l Conduct (2010) pmbl.
Furthermore, Rule 1.1, which pertains to competence, requires that “[a] lawyer shall provide
competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge,
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Ill. R. Prof’l
Conduct (2010) R. 1.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010). The comment on legal knowledge and skill notes that
“[i]n determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite knowledge and skill in a particular
matter, relevant factors include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the
lawyer’s general experience, [and] the lawyer’s training and experience in the field in
question.” Ill. R. Prof’l Conduct (2010) R. 1.1, cmt. 1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010).
¶ 42 Based upon the complexity of most immigration matters, attorneys not otherwise trained or
knowledgeable in immigration law should beware. See, e.g., In re Winthrop, 219 Ill. 2d 526(2006). A criminal charge at the state level adds another layer to an immigration case, and the
cases cited by the majority reveal issues in such cases that could well encourage nightmares
during an otherwise peaceful sleep.
¶ 43 How can such cases be better handled by counsel and the courts? Consultation with an
immigration attorney before the plea is entered is an excellent idea. A better practice might be
to advise a client in writing (in the client’s primary language) that consultation with an
immigration attorney is recommended and to likewise request a response from the immigration
attorney in writing as well. At a minimum though, to meet their responsibilities as advisor,
- 10 -
evaluator, and advocate, attorneys should create complete profiles of those seeking their
professional assistance.
¶ 44 As for the courts, while negotiated pleas are essential to the orderly administration of
justice, finality of cases is just as essential. If there is any question about the defendant’s
nationality, counsel should be asked during the presentation of the plea whether he or she has
talked to the defendant about possible deportation as a result of the plea. An answer of “no”
may delay the plea or even be a basis to set the matter for trial. However, if the answer is “yes,”
a record has been made and subsequent proceedings might not be needed or might be
minimized in scope.
¶ 45 This is not an issue that is likely to go away anytime soon. Solutions need to be explored to
ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice in all cases.
- 11 -