So this is a bit weird. The initial claim seems not well defined, because "legal" / "illegal" person is not really a thing without more context, so you can interpret it in many ways. The main takeaway though is "after the hearing, he's not breaking any rules by staying and working in the country". That's legal enough for me for a casual comment - I'll stay with my original then - he entered illegally and afterwards was allowed to legally remain.
This is simply false. He broke the law, was a criminal, had no right to reside in the US. Saying he was innocent is also simply false.
Have you got the actual court decision about the crime? Not police accusations or similar - confirmation he was actually judged and found guilty in court?