she might be deported as a result of a guilty plea renders a plea constitutionally involuntary as i'll explain today as i try to explain in my briefs the answer to that question is yes the fundamental reason that the answer that question is yes and a severe penalty that has become deeply enmeshed in the criminal proceedings so i'm therefore asking this honorable court to do is to hold that a trial court's failure to advise and i'm citizen offended of the potential immigration consequences of a is that our belief is they are what's happened what these other courts have done and the state's argument is is skipping we think an essential logical step in the in the logical what we're asking is that this court bind at least following idiot at that is collateral concept that who is not as convicted i would horrible events when he pleads guilty to a horrible events he is going to be deported it is virtually automatic and as we were all well aware by statute in illinois seven twenty five after after pretty much of our prior case law and the distinction between direct and clairol consequences focus is on which sovereign is imposing the consequences you seem to be arguing in you consequences it's something that's unique sweeteners or perhaps is it is the word for it it's something that is in a category of its own and it can no longer be considered a collateral consequences now when we go all the way back to boykin he alabama supreme court united states in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine it's clear that in order for a guilty plea to be valid under the due process clause the record has to affirmatively show that the plane was entered intelligently and with full knowledge of all the consequences now what the poison court recognized was that when when people plead guilty give up a number of of valuable rights for example the right to confront one s community and so we are asking this honorable court to the whole that one of the consequences that has to be explained by a court as a matter of fundamental due process as a matter of final fundamental fairness is that if  guilty to do a certain offense that he is almost certainly going to be going to be deported now as i said before and i've liked the reemphasizes there's a straightforward logical progression  here and with all due respect to these other courts that the state decided we do have to admit that the weight of the authority unfortunately for us does seem to be going in the other direction but with all due respect to those other courses in my humble opinion there's there logical problem these courses are taking the logical a logical leap that's on board and we have to start with the foundational principle that the immigration consequences of a guilty plea or taishan is no longer a collateral consequence is the end to our to our logical progression here a trial court's failure to give a defendant a non citizen defendant the section one thirteen a did not issue is is that in process now new york's highest co impact and this is the case i'd like to direct this on of course attention to yet hold at the podium court's factual observation about the nature of deportation rings true in both the context of due process and of collateral consequences has to be the case for all purposes we cannot say as a matter of fundamental logic that wealthy partition as it is a collateral consequence for one purpose and not if if it's not a collateral consequences it's it's it's out of collateral consequences now what i'd like to do i see very close to the end i think what i should do your honors at this point very quickly is to address this court's decision and in the hughes case the state talks about this and i talk about civilly committed as a result of this guilty plea now the difference between that contest in this context is that the hughes court this i'm according to use decided that the possibility of involuntary committed it was not immediate it was it was the court counsel i am assistant attorney general lindsay payne on behalf of people of the state of illinois i think it's important to take a step back and look at the context of defendants claim here defendant is here on direct appeal he currently has a post conviction petition pending in the circuit court of will county where he is alleged a sixth amendment violation under pedia in that case he will have the opportunity to demonstrate that he was unaware of the immigration consequences of his plea and that had he known he risked removal from the country he would not have pled guilty to aggravated possession of stolen firearms underpin dhea he will be entitled to repeat in that case if he can demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty had counsel warned him of the immigration consequences additionally although he did not raise the claim in this court defendant had a withdraw his the underdog the law defendant simply raises the wrong claim before this court asks for more protection than that which is given to defendants who have been misinformed regarding the direct consequences of their yes this court to go beyond what any court in this country has done and to hold that a trial court's admonishment error entitles him to automatic withdraw of his plea without any demonstration of prejudice that something that is not even allowed if the trial court tells the defendant the wrong maximum penalty for his crime this would be a truly unprecedented role to dia struck the right balance is this court knowledge by placing the responsibility of warning defendant with defense counsel who is in a far better position than the trial court to understand her client's needs in to advise him on the advantages and disadvantages of the guilty including any potential immigration consequences trial courts are required to warn defendants only of the direct consequences of their fees for good reason direct consequences are those consequences that are at the question is not severity as my opponent would suggest the question is does the trial court have the ability to impose removal from the country on the defendant as a punishment for the crime and it is not within the trial court's control defendant would expand the obligations on the trial court and place them in the position the burdensome position of determining who is and who is not a united states citizen and it's worth noting that in defendant's report reply brief page eleven he argues that trial courts would not be tasked with sorting out who is who is not a united states citizen because it would be defendant's burden to put forth evidence proving that he's not a united states citizen at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty but defendant here never put forth any such evidence he's never done anything more than allege that the trial court will to give the admonishment and that he's therefore automatically entitled to withdraw his plea so even under defendant's own proposed rule he fails to meet his burden here but this court should not adopt  thing was simply that collateral consequences are not categorically exempt from counsel's duty to her client under the sixth amendment so any position that may have taken on whether immigration made on the subject was that immigration consequences are uniquely difficult to categorize as either direct or collateral in this court in people be career i recognize that that was not a repudiation of immigration and tellingly defend it here never conducts a due process and alice's before this or can recognize a new process right it should weigh the nature of the private interest its state and the value of you to safeguard against the government's recognized and legitimate interest in the finality of convictions bearing in mind that approximately ninety five percent of all convictions result from guilty so neither idea nor  process analysis starting from first principles compel this court to overturn delta lar and this court should define to do so i would like to take a moment to provide some clarification on the record if i could there had been a representation made in the appellate court that the defendant had been removed from the country and that is true but a lot has changed since then the defendant was removed from the country in tw that time he was convicted of a drug crime and he is currently imprisoned at the illinois river correctional center he's due to complete a one year sentence next month at which time he you will be released back to the custody of immigrations and customs enforcement so for now he is in the country but it does not appear that he will be for long if the court has no very powerful then was directly on point if there's been a due process violation and we argue that there was one here fundamental violation of mr guzman's to process feelings it's improper to then place the burden on the defend advance some very very serious things or have that person a person who is going to have that person is that person is almost certainly going to be him in prison for a period of time and the second thing is going to happen to that person if that person is not a citizen like mr it was all defendants if they're not a citizen they may be deported as a result of that if you so there would be no added burden whatsoever on trial or like to point out your honesty is there any time there's a significant break in the law anytime something new happens in a law somebody has to be first somebody has to take a bold step to be adverse to say look whatever this is whether we're go back to something like bro v board of education this is a matter of fundamental fairness it's a matter of due process it's a matter of people's rights and we're going to be the first person in what we're asking this court to do and want to wonderful opportunities for has to be the first conviction is essentially just i've done some research on i can't put this as use to you off the top of my head but my research indicates that one and that is the board as a result of a criminal conviction it's extraordinarily norm you're saying once the port is very difficult to get back it's very difficult for these people get back lawfully it's virtually impossible for these people to get back waffly whether or not these people are able to get at this country by other means that's not something i'