Error and/or relief
The defendant’s moved to vacate his guilty plea under section 1473.7, asserting a lack of a knowing and intelligent understanding of the immigration consequences. The court erred in denying the motion, having concluded that, while he did not have an adequate understanding, there was no prejudice. We therefore reverse and remand with directions to grant the motion.
First Holding:
Section 1473.7 enables a defendant who is no longer in criminal custody to bring a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence on grounds the conviction or sentence 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 a conviction or sentence.
To establish eligibility to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1473.7(a)(1), a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence and (2) that the damage resulted in prejudice.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613
Second Holding:
The independent standard of review applies to an appeal of an order denying a section 1473.7 motion. Under independent review, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law. Factual findings and credibility determinations based on the trial court’s personal observation of witnesses are entitled to deference.
However, when, as here, facts derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, no such deference is warranted because the trial court and the appellate court are in the same position with respect to assessing the evidence. Ultimately it is for the appellate court to decide, based on its independent judgment, whether the facts establish prejudice under section 1473.7.
Authority:
People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528
People v. Avena (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 624, 632
People v. Garcia (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1059, 1065
Third Holding:
In determining whether a defendant has established error under section 1473.7, the court’s focus is on the defendant’s subjective understanding of immigration consequences at the time of entering a guilty plea. A defendant may establish error by showing the defendant entered a guilty plea without a meaningful understanding of the actual or potential adverse consequences of the resulting conviction or sentence.
The defendant alternatively may show that counsel provided incomplete or inaccurate advice about the plea’s immigration consequences or did not effectively communicate the immigration consequences, so the defendant entered the plea without a meaningful understanding of them.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 614
People v. Bravo (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1073 [Defendants must be advised that they will be deported, excluded, and denied naturalization as a mandatory consequence of the conviction.]
People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 954–955, 959, 963 [granting the defendant’s section 1473.7 motion in part based on his mental health issues]
Fourth Holding:
A defendant establishes prejudice by showing a reasonable probability the defendant would not have entered the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences and their options for defending against those consequences.
A reasonable probability does not mean more likely than not. Instead, it means merely a reasonable chance, which is more than an abstract possibility. In other words, a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 626
Fifth Holding:
We consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty had he meaningfully understood its immigration consequences.
A defendant’s assertion he would not have entered the plea must be corroborated by objective evidence. Objective evidence may be presented through a defendant’s declaration or testimony, declarations or testimony of others, or documentary evidence, including the record of the underlying criminal proceedings.
Objective evidence includes evidence of:
(1) the defendant’s ties to the United States;
(2) the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation;
(3) the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain;
(4) whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible;
(5) the probability the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome by rejecting the plea agreement; and
(6) the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if the defendant were convicted at trial.
These factors are not exhaustive and no single one is either required for relief or dispositive.
(Gary note: The appellate court dove extensively into information about the defendant to conclude that he was not properly informed and that he did not understand the consequences and that he suffered prejudice. Those details are omitted here because they serve no value as authority.)
Authority:
People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 626-627
Sixth Holding:
We do not decide whether the defendant would have had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was possible. Because the test for prejudice considers what the defendant would have done, not what the effect of that decision would have been, a court may not deny relief simply by finding it not reasonably probable the defendant by rejecting the plea would have obtained a more favorable outcome.
Where avoiding deportation was the deciding factor for a defendant, there is a reasonable probability that such a defendant would have rejected any plea leading to deportation—even if it shaved off prison time—in favor of throwing a “Hail Mary” at trial.
A defendant’s stated interests during plea negotiations are relevant only to the extent that they were based on a full and accurate understanding of the immigration consequences at issue. Consequently, a defendant’s stated interests during plea bargaining can hardly serve as evidence that he didn’t care about immigration consequences when it is undisputed that the defendant was not properly advised.
Authority:
People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1010
People v. Benitez-Torres (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1263, 1270
People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 912