People v. Viquez

2022 IL App (1st) 211431-U No. 1-21-1431 Order filed September 29, 2022 Fourth Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 11 CR 1680 ) RAFAEL VIQUEZ, ) Honorable ) Neera Walsh, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Lampkin and Justice Rochford concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm the summary dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition where he lacked standing to file the petition because he had completed his sentence for the conviction at issue. ¶2 Defendant Rafael Viquez appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act), 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2020). He contends his petition stated at least the gist of a meritorious claim that his guilty plea resulted from trial counsel misinforming him he would not face deportation for his conviction. The State responds that No. 1-21-1431 defendant lacked standing to bring his petition under the Act because he had completed his sentence before he filed it. We affirm. ¶3 Defendant was charged with multiple counts of delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a), (c) (West 2010)). As charged, the alleged offenses were either Class X or Class 1 felonies. ¶4 In 2012, defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to an amended charge of delivery of a controlled substance as a Class 2 felony (720 ILCS 570/401(d) (West 2010)), in exchange for a sentence of four years’ probation with 10 days’ community service, fines, and fees. ¶5 During the plea hearing, the court admonished defendant: “If you are not a citizen of the United States, pleading guilty to the offense for which you have been charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization under the laws of the United States.” Defendant stated he understood. Counsel told the court that defendant “is not an American citizen, so, therefore, that is a real possibility for him. He is aware of that, and we have discussed that, and he has hired an immigration lawyer with whom I have also consulted.” ¶6 In February 2015, defendant’s motion for early termination of probation was granted, and his probation terminated satisfactorily. ¶7 In September 2021, defendant filed his “motion,” or petition, for relief under the Act. He sought in the petition to vacate his guilty plea as he “was not aware of the impact or the consequences of the conviction.” He alleged trial counsel was ineffective for not properly advising him of the immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant stated that he was “in the process of adjusting into a legal permanent resident of …

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