Error and/or relief
In light of Hernandez, decided after the ruling appealed from below, we reverse the order denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7 because of his inadequate understanding of the immigration consequences, and we remand for further proceedings.
First Holding:
Under Penal Code section 1473.7, a person who is no longer in custody may seek to vacate a conviction on the ground it is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of the conviction. A finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. The statute was enacted to provide out-of-custody defendants with a means to challenge criminal convictions for which they have suffered unexpected immigration consequences.
Authority:
PEN 1473.7
People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 517
Second Holding:
To prevail under the statute, the defendant must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea. Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error. Prejudical error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.
Authority:
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319
Third Holding:
In Hernandez, the California Supreme Court made clear that for purposes of establishing error under section 1473.7(a)(1), the focus is not so much on what the defendant was told about the possible immigration consequences of his plea, but on what the defendant subjectively understood those consequences to be.
Keeping in mind that, for noncitizen defendants, preserving their right to stay in the United States is often a crucial factor in deciding whether to plead guilty to criminal charges, the trial court ultimately must decide whether the defendant was prejudicially harmed by his or her inability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 607-608, 614-15, 622-623
Fourth Holding:
The court erred by applying res judicata (based on the previous 2002 denial of a motion to vacate the conviction for inadequate advice on immigration consequences) to bar the defendant’s motion under section 1473.7.
In Ruiz, the court ruled the doctrine of collateral estoppel, an aspect of res judicata, did not preclude the defendant from bringing successive section 1473.7(a)(1) motions on the basis she failed to understand the immigration consequences of her guilty plea. In so ruling, the Ruiz court found it significant that, at the time of the defendant’s first motion, she was required to prove her attorney was ineffective for failing to advise her of those consequences.
But by the time the Ruiz filed her second motion, that requirement had been eliminated, and she only had to show she prejudicially failed to understand the immigration consequences of her plea. Because the second motion involved a different standard for challenging and prevailing on immigration advisement errors, Ruiz was not collaterally estopped from bringing the motion.
The same reasoning applies here.
Authority:
People v. Ruiz (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 1061, 1068-1070
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 823–825
Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356 [a defense attorney’s failure to advise his or her client about the potential immigration consequences of a plea may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel]
Fifth Holding:
Whereas the defendant was required to prove his attorney was ineffective when he petitioned to vacate his guilty plea 25 years ago, that was not the case when he filed his recent section 1473.7(a)(1) motion. Hernandez confirms this is an important point of distinction because the error analysis under section 1473.7(a)(1) turns not on what the defendant was advised regarding the possible immigration consequences of his plea, but on whether he meaningfully understood those consequences and whether he was able to defend against or knowingly accept them.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 622-626
Sixth Holding:
Hernandez acknowledged that remand to the trial court for further development of the record will be appropriate in many appeals from denials of section 1473.7(a)(1) motions that were pending when it issued its decision. As the concurring and dissenting opinion observed, remand would allow the defendant an opportunity to make a fuller presentation of evidence with the guidance the Supreme Court has provided in mind and would permit the trial court to make a new ruling taking that additional evidence into account.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 621, fn. 4
