Error and/or relief
It was error to deny the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea under section 1473.7. We reverse the judgment. The superior court shall enter an order vacating the defendant’s conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1).
First Holding:
Penal Code section 1473.7 allows those no longer in custody to vacate a conviction if it is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of the conviction.
Authority:
PEN 1473(a)(1)
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316
Second Holding:
The superior court denied the defendant’s motion. It concluded that the defendant’s prosecution had no adverse immigration consequences because the charge he pleaded to did not name cocaine as the controlled substance. It also concluded that because he had completed the Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) arrangement and achieved a dismissal, there was no conviction left to vacate. The court erred. In fact, a DEJ disposition can result in adverse immigration consequences.
Authority:
PC 1203.43
Third Holding:
We apply independent review when the record indicates there was no evidentiary hearing.
Authority:
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319
Fourth Holding:
A conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11350 involving cocaine can have adverse immigration consequences. And in federal immigration tribunals and the Ninth Circuit, a police report forming the factual basis of a plea can furnish details, otherwise missing from charging documents, that allow the imposition of adverse immigration consequences.
Authority:
Lazo v. Wilkinson (9th Cir. 2021) 989 F.3d 705, 714
Matter of Milian-Dubon (B.I.A. 2010) 25 I. & N. Dec. 197, 201,
United States v. Almazan-Becerra (9th Cir. 2008) 537 F.3d 1094, 1097–1100
Suazo Perez v. Mukasey (9th Cir. 2008) 512 F.3d 1222, 1226
In re Sanudo (B.I.A. 2006) 23 I. & N. Dec. 968, 975,
Parrilla v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2005) 414 F.3d 1038, 1044
United States v. Ramos-Medina (9th Cir. 2013) 706 F.3d 932, 939–940
Fifth Holding:
Under the totality of circumstances in this conceded case, we agree with the parties that the misinformation the defendant received regarding his plea was prejudicial and that reversal to ensure prompt relief under Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1), rather than remand, is appropriate.
Authority:
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 321, 325–326
People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 559