Error and/or relief
The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate a conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion.
First Holding:
Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences.
Authority:
PEN 1473.7
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316
Second Holding:
In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, the importance the noncitizen placed on avoiding deportation, the noncitizen’s priorities in negotiating a plea bargain, and whether the noncitizen had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was available. However, this list is not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is necessary for relief. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.
Authority:
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321
Third Holding:
We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.
Authority:
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319
Fourth Holding:
The noncitizen’s subjective misunderstanding qualifies as sufficient error under the statute. The focus is on noncitizen’s own error in not understanding the plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion.
Authority:
People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 909–910
Fifth Holding:
There is a critical difference between being notified the plea may have immigration consequences and being told the plea will make one immediately deportable. When a noncitizen receives only the first advisement in a situation calling for the second, the advisement is insufficient. A failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient
Authority:
People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523, 533
Sixth Holding:
Deep, lifelong ties to United States is compelling evidence a noncitizen would reject plea leading to mandatory deportation. This desire is particularly strong where the noncitizen is an asylee. In addition to facing disruption of the most important relationships in the noncitizen’s life, an asylee must also fear returning to a place the asylee has an adjudicated reason to fear.
Authority:
People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 325
People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 963