2018 IL App (3d) 170786 Opinion filed September 7, 2018 _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2018 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 9th Judicial Circuit, ) Knox County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-17-0786 v. ) Circuit No. 11-CF-494 ) ELOY GUERRERO, ) Honorable ) Scott Shipplett, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Holdridge specially concurred, with opinion. Justice Schmidt specially concurred, with opinion. _____________________________________________________________________________ OPINION ¶1 Defendant, Eloy Guerrero, appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea, arguing (1) his postplea counsel labored under a per se conflict of interest, (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to withdraw guilty plea where his plea counsel failed to inform defendant he was subject to mandatory deportation, and (3) he is entitled to $5-per-day credit towards his fines. We vacate and remand with directions. ¶2 FACTS ¶3 On August 20, 2012, defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit the offense of unlawful possession of more than 5000 grams of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(g) (West 2010); 720 ILCS 5/8-2 (West 2010)) in exchange for a six-year sentencing cap and defendant’s cooperation if called to testify. Defendant was represented by Daniel O’Brien, a Knox County alternate public defender. The court explained to defendant that the sentencing cap meant that the State would not ask for more than six years’ imprisonment, but that the court could sentence defendant to probation or a period of incarceration, even a period of incarceration greater than six years. The court asked if defendant understood. Defendant stated, “I understand that but, I mean, can I think about this? I mean, I wonder if I can get—it wouldn’t affect my immigration status?” The court stated: “By pleading guilty here today, this could affect your immigration status. If you’re here as—illegally or if you’re a holder of a green card, there could be immigration consequences; but immigration is a federal matter. It’s not a state matter. And while I could tell you that it’s possible that any—that what you do here could lead to your deportation from the United States, I have no idea. *** So I suppose that it could conceivably result in your deportation, but I don’t know what will happen.” Defendant’s plea counsel then stated, “I’ve explained it to him as best as I understand the situation with immigration law.” Defendant asked if the sentence could be lower. The court stated that defendant could ask for probation, but that it would have to hear and consider the evidence in aggravation and mitigation before deciding on a sentence. Defendant said he understood. Defendant then stated: 2 “I wonder if it’s possible to get—I mean, because—the way I see it is when after—even if I get probation, I might get in trouble with immigration. I’m legally [sic]. I worked too hard to get [to] this point. And, I mean, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals