People v. Hoare

2018 IL App (2d) 160727 No. 2-16-0727 Opinion filed January 17, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court OF ILLINOIS, ) of Lake County. ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 12-CF-3735 ) ARTHUR G. HOARE, ) Honorable ) Daniel B. Shanes, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McLaren and Spence concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Defendant, Arthur G. Hoare, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014)). He contends that the petition stated the gist of a meritorious claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that, by pleading guilty to a drug-possession felony and accepting a sentence of first-offender probation, he would necessarily be subject to deportation. We reverse and remand. ¶2 Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to unlawful possession of cocaine (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2012)) and was sentenced to 24 months’ first-offender probation (720 ILCS 570/410(a) (West 2012)). Under “410 probation,” the court does not enter a judgment of conviction (id.) and further proceedings are delayed until the defendant completes his probation 2018 IL App (2d) 160727 (720 ILCS 570/410(b) (West 2012)). If the defendant violates his probation, the trial court may enter a judgment on the original finding of guilt and proceed accordingly. 720 ILCS 570/410(e) (West 2012). If the defendant completes his probation successfully, he is discharged, the charges are dismissed (720 ILCS 570/410(f) (West 2012)), and the disposition is not considered a criminal conviction under Illinois law (720 ILCS 570/410(g) (West 2012)). ¶3 On June 10, 2013, the parties presented the plea agreement. The trial court noted that defendant was also pleading guilty to driving with a revoked license and would pay costs for that offense. The proceedings continued: “THE COURT: For all of these, though, do you understand that for the drug case, this 410 probation as we’re calling it, is a special kind of probation. A conviction is not being entered for Illinois law purposes today. If you successfully complete the probation, then there won’t be a conviction for that. There will be on the traffic offense. But regardless, these dispositions could result in the federal government trying to remove or deport you from the United States or prevent you from obtaining naturalized United States citizenship. Nobody here, not the lawyers, not me, nobody, can make you any promises or representations as to what the federal government might do. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Grimes [(defendant’s attorney)], have you and your client had an opportunity to look into the immigration consequences? MR. GRIMES: Yes, Judge. We believe that this is an appropriate disposition taking that into account. THE COURT: Okay. And you had a chance to speak with immigration? -2­ 2018 IL App (2d) 160727 MR. GRIMES: An attorney. THE ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals