this is the state appeal from they were votes all of the appellate court for a and a mission of the statutory advisement and immigration now certainly a guilty plea must be knowing defendant must know the direct consequences of his play in supreme court rule for two covers that supreme court rule four zero two requires that a court ensure that the defendant understand the nature of his charge a sentencing range that he has the right to plead not guilty that he gives up that right in waves the right by trial by jury and you also waive the right to confront witnesses and certainly a guilty plea must be volunteering in the constitutional sense this means that he's not forced or coerced here or the court admonish the defendant and each of these elements of supreme court will forward to in fact at that guilty plea proceeding there were eleven questions between the court and the defendant himself and in the plea i'm sorry in the sentencing proceeding there was another  seven question so there was a total of eighteen questions in addition to a county query that the defendant himself had with the court about an extension of time to finish a contract that he was working on so at the hearing on the defendant's motion to withdraw counsel stated the basis for his claim seeking to withdraw his guilty plea was the admitted statutory violate immigration advisement but the legislature's decision to abrogate courts to give this advice and is a matter of public policy is a determination that it's an important political consequence but it doesn't transform a potential immigration consequence which is collateral to the guilty plea nor does it transform a voluntary plea into an involuntary one so the appellate court here simply collateral of the us in his in their brief talk about the consequences and whether they're more harsh or less harsh or whether someone is a valuable for an exemption or not available for an exemption but it doesn't alter the fact that there is no  county that has control over a federal decision to affect a defendant who is not a us citizens immigration status so defendant and amicus both argue that the stand implicates the substantive ri to trial but the supreme court will forward to address is that defendant is admonished that he has the right to go to trial that he gives up that right if he chooses to plead guilty so with or without the advisement he has those same rights and he said mohnish has to those rights and there's do in our proceeding here in the and the criminal courts in illinois and if he is not a u s citizen and if he is subjected to an immigration proceeding he will be entitled to all the process that he is due in that proceeding and the federal courts agree that there is a bright line distinction between a collateral consequence and the automatic consequences of a guilty plea in the same defender also argues that money should apply here but that principle doesn't apply this is not a even applies in sewell statute such as the a sexually violent persons commitment act and that was the power case so the point is not to be at the end of the day only operates when there's a low legislative history here there's considerable legislative history  mutable meaning and mandatory directive is not the same directory is not the same as mandatory permissive and the appellate court was concerned that if it didn't read it as a mandatory statute that somehow trial courts could choose to give the advisement are not give the advisement but as this court has said in robinson the mandatory directory dichotomy deals with the consequences and so the question here is what are the consequences and the legislative intent clearly is that the consequences yeah there was no there was no advisement at all before this statute they just didn't exist because it is a quite a well the general assembly itself said we've got it the remedy for the statute it will be an advisement only by the court the legislature wanted the courts to give this advisory and ordinarily the court will give the advisory but the question here as i say ordinarily a court will hear the defendant said he was a u s citizen while making that an automatic vacant chair elevates the statutory advisement over even constitutionally backed violations and it's clearly not with the legislature intended we know that because the legislative history here removed any remedy for the failure to give the advisement and said the legislature itself said we gutted the statute it's just an advisement so clearly the legislature wants to single out this important collateral consequences but the question here before this court district have rejected that view because it would lead to the absurd result of opening the door to any criminal defendant u s citizen or not to come back and claim an automatic going to figure of their guilty plea for a statute that doesn't even apply to them and i find it interesting because contrary to the court's view for him immigration status was irrelevant both the senate and the amicus here would apply a prejudiced standard that same standard that's applied to every other defendant to u citizens but neither amicus nor defendant addressed by that standard should apply to one who claims to be a u s citizen before coming back to claim a contrary status in his motion to vacate now the defendant tries to just taken by the united states supreme court but that's a case involving ineffective assistance of counsel and this court has already decided korea and who want to regarding mrs advice and mis information to a defendant so that case is simply not going to assist in the analysis here i mean this does call for a common sense approach and the state certainly appreciates that but then they call for an evidentiary hearing and status but a mini trial on this issue is not required or merely the court's going to give the advisement in fact here the circuit court son it would have advised the defendant if the defendant had not claimed to be a u s citizen under the existing scheme defendant could certainly raise the omission in his motion to withdraw as he did here he can obtain a hearing as he did here but the standard is clear when you seek to withdraw a guilty plea prejudice is required he's already represented himself directly to the court as a u s citizen so to hon this guilty plea this defendant was required to prove that he is subject to immigration consequences and that but for the advice but he wasn't quite guilty and that way you can show his actual prejudice like every other defendant who comes before court now because talks about poten collateral consequences and defendant speculates that with his prior record he might not be able to show that he could be subject to torture in mexico but the fact is the record doesn't show any of this and an amicus is generalizations with regard to immigration consequences in general and what people may face the fed it doesn't claim any language barrier he was able to answer seventeen questions plus have another colloquy with the court about as well plus you talk to the court about speaking english he hasn't claimed ineffective assistance of counsel here he's not raised that issue and it doesn't appear that he's culturally confused about whether you should be carrying a loaded gun in chicago because he was on probation for carrying a gun just three months earlier so he's still on probation when he's charged with this crime so i mean this has to speculate considerably because the record does not show that the defendant has met his burden that the defendant claims to misunderstand a direct question of the court given the fact that he speaks english and was able to answer seventeen other questions is simply not sufficient to unravel this guilty plea he never claimed he was subject to immigration consequences he never claimed that if he got hit by his men he might not apply guilty the admission was harmless on this record and defendant has simply not shown it to be otherwise there are no further questions we ask this court to reverse the first district appellate court and reinstate defendant's connection thank you you say well they're still they still won't be able to show prejudice obviously as a result of that because they're worse service and just give you admonish me but i think justice framus question goes to whether or not i believe it is if he has a perfect if he's a person that could suffer consequences immigration consequences from an on knowing plea of guilty reasonable procedure within the riband the process so that's not in the morning all of the statute the statue just makes it clear that this must be a good dislike the legislative history was very hopefully my comments are not just dries my mouth at the moment five the defense filed a motion on december fifteenth of two thousand and five for the first time saying the defendant is not a citizen of the united states and on june sixth of two thousand and six that motion was heard and that's when the coll so you said earlier this was a perfect time when if the judge didn't know he was a u s citizen or not he should have given the of monisha the judge didn't know that until at least seven months after the or at least the month when the motion was filed after they just two short points the first is that the judge said in this case in the motion to withdraw i'll accept your statement that you are a citizen of the united states i gave you the opportunity to tell me you were not i could advise you what you could have done you did not give me that opportunity i'm not let you withdraw your guilty plea later when and then the judge contemplates holding him in contempt of court and the judge says i gave you the opportunity to finish the job you've taken your word you back you didn't finish the job i gave you the opportunity now you're back your b s in the court i don't know whether you're a citizen or not and the court denied the motion that was the very last thing the courts have but the court already accepted the representation to the court that he was a u s citizen the issue here isn't by  contract so he was holding his own colloquy with the court at that time so the question here is what is the remedy the remedy should be the remedy for everyone and that standard does not change and that means that he had his remedy he found his motion he made his claim he didn't support it in the slightest he simply made a contrary claim the court rejected it it was a personal representation to the court and the court accepted the fact that he was a us citizen so we did ask this we did ask this court to reverse if the legislature says here here's what you should advise defendants as part of their guilty plea if you're not a us citizen x y and z so that's a generic statement and that solves these issues of many trials but once you tell the court i mean us citizen and now you come back to court asked to unravel your guilty plea then you have the burden like everybody else to show that standard so the point isn't do the legislature think it should be given the point is if you represent yourself as a u s citizen you have to come back like everybody else and say i've been prejudiced in this process and here is the process and now the court can say you don't want i accept your at the station but you're a u s citizen and it's a matter of making two different statements here and the court decided to accept his at the station so he has the burden like everybody else who wants to come in on revel their guilty plea it's not an automatic feature and that's where the appellate court got confused the appellate court kind of said shall shells sh raj and i got the benefit of the what i needed now i'm not that's not enough thank you thank you