http://callyourlawyers.com/iblog/index.html/B142730792 These published weblogs (a/k/a, blogs) display the ten most recent entries. The archives links lets the user navigate to a collection of entries by day, month and year. The category link let the user browse the entries by category. It also generates a RSS/XML file for all the blogs. This is a feed file that lets you subscribe to our blog. http://www.callyourlawyers.com. Tel.: (312) 836-9040 |(847) 465-0007. Chicago and Wheeling, Illinois, 2003. All rights reserved. Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:46:50 -0600 Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:46:53 -0600 iBlog 1.3.9

]]> Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:08:35 -0500 Starting January 1, 2004, a plea of guilty will now only be "intelligent and informed" when the judge has admonished the non-citizen defendant that his plea may have an adverse consequence on his non-citizen status in the United States (P.A. 93-0373). This may turn into a right without a remedy because the new  Section 113-8 does not require the judge to vacate the plea for failure to admonish. (see Wisconsin Supreme Court case below, where statute requires judge to admonish and failure to do so means absolute right to vacate plea) Illinois Senate  Amendment No. 1 deleted the requirement that, after the court fails to make the advisement to the alien, and the alien shows that conviction of the offense may have immigration consequences for the defendant, the court shall, on the defendant's motion, vacate the plea of guilty.
]]> Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:04:34 -0500 Section 5-6-1 of the Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1 ), authorizes the circuit court to enter an order of supervision for a person charged with a misdemeanor except that section 5-6-1(d)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that supervision may not be granted to a person convicted or assigned supervision for a violation of section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code "...or a similar provision of a local ordinance or any similar law or ordinance of another state..." In People v. Hamalainen, No. 2-02-0004, ___ Ill.App.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___ (2d Dist. 2003), the defendant argued that his previous Wisconsin conviction for driving with a prohibited BAC is not similar to the Illinois statute for the reasons that the Wisconsin law is punishable only by fine and not jail time and, in Illinois, the prohibited BAC 0.08 whereas, in Wisconsin, the prohibited BAC is 0.10. The appellate court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for supervision for the reason that the two statutes are "similar" under section 5-6-1(d) of the Code of Corrections. ]]> Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:47:35 -0500