bald claim in Illinois

2011Because the trial court's failure to admonish defendant of potential immigration consequences does not by itself call into question the constitutional voluntariness of his guilty plea ( Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d at 521-22 , 337 Ill.Dec. 207 , 922 N.E.2d 330 ), I would not disturb its decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea ( Pullen, 192 Ill.2d at 39-40 , 248 Ill.Dec. 237 , 733 N.E.2d 1235 ). ¶ 32 In coming to this conclusion, I note that defendant, in his reply brief, stated that "he is now awaiting deportation pending the outcome of this appeal." Defendant failed, however, to

2011Because the trial court's failure to admonish defendant of potential immigration consequences does not by itself call into question the constitutional voluntariness of his guilty plea ( Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d at 521-22 , 337 Ill.Dec. 207 , 922 N.E.2d 330 ), I would not disturb its decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea ( Pullen, 192 Ill.2d at 39-40 , 248 Ill.Dec. 237 , 733 N.E.2d 1235 ). ¶ 32 In coming to this conclusion, I note that defendant, in his reply brief, stated that "he is now awaiting deportation pending the outcome of this appeal." Defendant failed, however, to

2011Because the trial court's failure to admonish defendant of potential immigration consequences does not by itself call into question the constitutional voluntariness of his guilty plea ( Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d at 521-22 , 337 Ill.Dec. 207 , 922 N.E.2d 330 ), I would not disturb its decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea ( Pullen, 192 Ill.2d at 39-40 , 248 Ill.Dec. 237 , 733 N.E.2d 1235 ). ¶ 32 In coming to this conclusion, I note that defendant, in his reply brief, stated that "he is now awaiting deportation pending the outcome of this appeal." Defendant failed, however, to

2011Because the trial court's failure to admonish defendant of potential immigration consequences does not by itself call into question the constitutional voluntariness of his guilty plea ( Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d at 521-22 , 337 Ill.Dec. 207 , 922 N.E.2d 330 ), I would not disturb its decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea ( Pullen, 192 Ill.2d at 39-40 , 248 Ill.Dec. 237 , 733 N.E.2d 1235 ). ¶ 32 In coming to this conclusion, I note that defendant, in his reply brief, stated that "he is now awaiting deportation pending the outcome of this appeal." Defendant failed, however, to

1969The validity of such covenant cannot be questioned so long as the employee remains in the employ of the employer.” In Good v. Modern Globe, Inc., 346 Mich 602 , 78 NW2d 199 (1956), an employment contract provided that the employee, “for the above specified period [the term of employment] . . . will not, without prior written consent of the company, become employed, directly or indirectly, by any manufacturer of knitted goods or products presently manufactured by the company. . . .” The Michigan Supreme Court sustained the validity of this covenant, even though Michigan had a sweeping statute i

1969The validity of such covenant cannot be questioned so long as the employee remains in the employ of the employer.” In Good v. Modern Globe, Inc., 346 Mich 602 , 78 NW2d 199 (1956), an employment contract provided that the employee, “for the above specified period [the term of employment] . . . will not, without prior written consent of the company, become employed, directly or indirectly, by any manufacturer of knitted goods or products presently manufactured by the company. . . .” The Michigan Supreme Court sustained the validity of this covenant, even though Michigan had a sweeping statute i

1948There was nothing in the common-law record, on the basis of which the Supreme Court of Illinois rendered its decision, to contradict this account of the proceedings in 1935 [date of sentence.] We thus have in effect the bald claim ttiat, merely because the record does not disclose an offer of counsel to a defendant upon a plea of guilty, although the court before accepting the plea duly advised of his ‘rights of trial’ and of the consequences of such a plea, he is ‘deprived of rights essential to a fair hearing under the Federal Constitution.’ De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U.S. 663 , 91 L. ed.