People v. DelVillar

In People v. DelVillar, 383 Ill. App. 3d 80, 890 N.E.2d 680, 321 Ill. Dec. 958 (2008), during the plea hearing, the judge asked the defendant if he was a United States citizen, and the defendant responded in the affirmative. DelVillar, 383 Ill. App. 3d at 82. As a result, the trial court did not give the section 113-8 admonishment. Contrary to the defendant's claim, he was not a citizen, and he subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea based on the trial court's failure to admonish him under section 113-8. The trial court denied the motion. DelVillar, 383 Ill. App. 3d at 83. On review, the court agreed with the dissent in Bilelegne and concluded that the admonishment was mandatory. The court noted that "the best indication of legislative intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning." DelVillar, 383 Ill. App. 3d at 84. The court found irrelevant the fact that the defendant had lied to the trial court about his immigration status during the proceedings. The court held: "The plain language of section 113-8 of the Code required the trial court to admonish the defendant concerning the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. We note that in the many iterations of the language of the bill which ultimately became section 113-8, the legislators could have required trial judges to inquire of the defendant regarding immigration status before giving the admonishment. The legislators chose not to do so and enacted a statute which appears clearly mandatory on its face." DelVillar, 383 Ill. App. 3d at 88-89. The court also noted the legislative history and stated: "There were many opportunities for the legislature to remove the word 'shall' and they declined to do so. Further, Representative Delgado made it clear that the legislation was being enacted to remedy an existing problem." DelVillar, 383 Ill. App. 3d at 87.