Category Archives: Duty of the court

Due process, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001026

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Twenty-one years after his conviction of murder committed when he was 20, the defendant filed a motion for a hearing under Franklin. The court (Judge A) appointed counsel and set a hearing date to determine whether the defendant was entitled to a full evidence preservation hearing. The defendant’s attorney ultimately filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, requesting that the matter be taken off the calendar, stating that the defendant was not entitled to a Franklin hearing under Hardin. There was no indication that counsel had discussed this with the defendant. The defendant was not present. The court (Judge B) relieved counsel and took the matter off calendar.

The order relieving defendant’s appointed counsel is reversed. Upon remand, the trial court shall issue an order reinstating counsel and set the request for a formal, noticed hearing in which defendant is given notice and an opportunity to respond.

To the extent defendant maintains upon remand that appointed counsel’s representation is inadequate or ineffective, the trial court is directed to consider any such claim under the principles set forth in People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

The trial court is further directed to set a new hearing for defendant’s Franklin motion if the defendant requests such relief upon remand.

First Holding:

Section 3051 offers youth offenders committed for long prison terms an opportunity for early release on parole. It requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole eligibility hearing to determine if, based on certain criteria involving the controlling offense, the offender is eligible for parole. The hearing must provide for a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, and includes an assessment of the offender’s growth and maturity that takes into consideration the diminished culpability of youth as compared to that of adults and the hallmark features of youth.

Given these factors, the California Supreme Court held in Franklin that when a juvenile offender receives an indeterminate life sentence, the offender must be given adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth.

Authority:

PEN 3051

People v. Williams (2024) 17 Cal.5th 99, 113

People v. Medrano (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 961, 967

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 269

Second Holding:

In Cook, the California Supreme Court extended the availability of a Franklin hearing to a juvenile offender whose conviction and sentence have become final. Specifically, it held that an offender entitled to a youth offender parole hearing may seek the remedy of a Franklin proceeding even though the offender’s sentence is otherwise final. To initiate such a proceeding, an offender should file a motion requesting a hearing under the authority of section 1203.01.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Ngo (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 116, 127

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 451

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

Third Holding:

The proper avenue to request a Franklin proceeding is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and Cook. The motion should establish the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicate when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred. Nothing in Cook indicates the motion must describe with precision the evidence the offender seeks to introduce.

There are no mandatory pleading requirements for a Franklin motion, and the required showing to initiate the process for a Franklin proceeding is minimal: due to the limited resources generally available to inmates, the Cook court reasonably envisioned a simple pleading mechanism to get the process started.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 896

Fourth Holding:

A legally sufficient Franklin motion does not automatically guarantee a defendant the right to do so. Rather, such a motion only initiates the process for a Franklin proceeding. Based solely on the motion, the trial court may immediately find a Franklin proceeding is warranted. The trial court may also exercise its discretion to conduct this process efficiently, ensuring that the information introduced is relevant, noncumulative, and otherwise in accord with the governing rules, statutes, and regulations.

The court may, for example, require an offer of proof regarding the evidence the offender seeks to present, so that it can determine whether such evidence is relevant to youth-related factors and meaningfully adds to the already available record. It may also determine whether testimony is appropriate, or if other types of evidentiary submissions will suffice. After allowing a defendant an opportunity of this nature, the court may deny further proceedings if it finds they are unlikely to produce fruitful evidence.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 152

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 149

Fifth Holding:

Courts have subsequently held that a Franklin motion may also be used to raise a challenge to section 3051’s limitations on the availability of youth offender parole hearings on equal protection grounds.

While the California Supreme Court has concluded that section 3051’s exclusion of offenders who are serving sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime committed after the age of 18 from youth offender parole eligibility is not facially unconstitutional, it expressly left the door open to the potential validity of challenges to other exclusions set forth in section 3051 as well as as-applied challenges based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Sands (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 193, 201-202

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 486-489

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 864

Sixth Holding:

Generally, a trial court’s removal of appointed counsel for an indigent defendant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Here, we have determined the trial court’s order granting appointed counsel’s request to be relieved constituted an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1119

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1190

People v. Wright (2021) 12 Cal.5th 419, 440

Seventh Holding:

Generally, both the United States Constitution and California Constitution guarantee a basic right of due process, and the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner may derive a due process liberty interest from either the Constitution or state law. When the asserted interest is derived exclusively from state law, it will be recognized as within the scope of due process liberty if the state statute protects the interest by permitting its forfeiture only on the happening of specified conditions.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 14th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 7, 15

People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 869

People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 265

Eighth Holding:

Generally, having undertaken the defense of a criminal case an attorney must continue with his services until he is released by the client or by the court. He may apply to the court for release from further services and for good cause shown may be released, but he may not abandon his representation at will. In light of this principle, it is established that the procedural requirements of sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern a change of attorney in a criminal, as well as in a civil, proceeding.

These statutes specify that in order to withdraw from representation, an attorney must either obtain the consent of the client or bring a formal application in the trial court with notice to the client. The legislative purpose of these provisions is to provide certain safeguards to protect the accused.

Authority:

CCP 284

CCP 285

People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 404, 406

Smith v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 68 Cal.2d 547, 558-559 [The sole statutory authority for the removal of counsel is Code of Civil Procedure section 284. That statute is applicable in criminal cases.]

In re Martinez (1959) 52 Cal.2d 808, 813

People v. Bouchard (1957) 49 Cal.2d 438, 440

People v. Kerfoot (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 622, 636

Ninth Holding:

Here, the trial court granted appointed counsel’s request to be relieved without complying with the statutory safeguards intended to afford defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trial court conducted a hearing and granted the request the day after it was filed.

There is nothing in the record to show that defendant received any notice of appointed counsel’s request to be relieved. Nor was defendant present at the hearing. Such a procedure clearly violated defendant’s right to due process. And an order made in violation of a party’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Kerfoot (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 622, 636 [Adequacy of notice is an element of due process of law. There is no due process of law in the complete absence of any notice.]

People v. Williams (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 828, 833 [Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard even where statutory procedures are unclear.]

People v. Johnson (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 5

Tenth Holding:

It is well established that a trial judge ordinarily may reconsider his or her own prejudgment rulings. There are limits, however, on the authority of one superior court judge to set aside the order of another judge of the same court. Under article VI, section 4, of the California Constitution, one judge or department of the superior court cannot enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with the judicial act of another judge or department of the superior court.

This rule prevents a trial court judge from acting as a one-judge appellate court over another judge. This is true even if the first judge committed legal error in ruling on the matter. The rule also bars a second judge from reconsidering another judge’s discretionary appointment of counsel.

Here, the order relieving counsel was made by a different judge than the one who previously appointed counsel and set the Franklin motion for a hearing.

The record shows that the first judge reviewed defendant’s Franklin motion and, based upon that review, appointed counsel and set the matter for a hearing. Thus, the question of whether defendant had established a prima facie showing sufficient to entitle him to appointment of counsel was already considered and decided by the first judge.

Even if that determination was erroneous, the second judge could not relieve counsel by purportedly reviewing the sufficiency of defendant’s prima facie showing anew and determining that it was inadequate to warrant appointment of counsel. Doing so would have constituted an impermissible reconsideration.

To be clear, a motion to be relieved may be heard by a judge other than the one who initially appointed counsel. However, the motion must be determined on its own merits based upon the showing and arguments presented in conjunction with that request.

Authority:

Calif. Const. art VI, sec. 4

People v. Waldon (2023) 14 Cal.5th 288, 306

In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 426-431 [second judge could not reconsider bail set by first judge even if first judge failed to correctly apply statutes in setting bail]

People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 712-713 [trial judge erred by relieving advisory counsel previously appointed by another judge]

Eleventh Holding:

In our view, the error in this case is akin to structural error requiring reversal. Typically, a defendant who has established error under state law must demonstrate there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error he or she would have obtained a more favorable result. However, under the California constitutional harmless-error provision some errors are not susceptible to the ordinary or generally applicable harmless-error analysis.

The kinds of errors that, regardless of the evidence, may result in a miscarriage of justice because they operate to deny a criminal defendant the constitutionally required orderly legal procedure all involve fundamental structural defects in the judicial proceedings.

Most errors are amenable to harmless error review because they can be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented.

Structural defects, on the other hand, defy analysis by harmless-error standards because they are not simply an error in the trial process, but rather an error affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds. A structural error requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.

Authority:

People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 553

People v. Lewis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1111

Discretion, Duty of the court, Pleading, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001023

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant’s motion filed under Franklin and Penal Code section 1203.01 for a hearing to set forth youth-related evidence for consideration at future parole hearings.

We conclude that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion absent evidence that the defendant had past opportunities to present youth-related evidence and absent information regarding the substance of the evidence that the defendant intended to present.

We decline to issue an order that the trial court grant the request for a Franklin hearing. We simply direct the court to hold a proper hearing on the motion to determine whether a Franklin hearing is warranted.

First Holding:

Section 3051(a)(1) provides for a youth offender parole hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger at the time of his or her controlling offense.

Section 4801(c) provides that, when a prisoner committed his or her controlling offense, as defined in section 3051(a), when he or she was 25 years of age or younger, the board, in reviewing a prisoner’s suitability for parole pursuant to section 3041.5, shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 4801(c)

Second Holding:

In Franklin, the Supreme Court held a defendant who did not have an opportunity to make a record of mitigating youth-related factors relevant to a later youth offender parole hearing should have an opportunity to make a record on remand.

The court explained that sections 3051 and 4801 contemplate that information regarding the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense will be available at a youth offender parole hearing to facilitate the Board’s consideration. Assembling such statements about the individual before the crime is typically a task more easily done at or near the time of the juvenile’s offense rather than decades later when memories have faded, records may have been lost or destroyed, or family or community members may have relocated or passed away.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to determine whether the defendant was afforded sufficient opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and if not, to allow the defendant to place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 283-284

Third Holding:

In Cook, the Supreme Court held that a juvenile offender with a final judgment could move for a postjudgment proceeding under section 1203.01, to present evidence of youth-related factors. The Cook court reasoned that recognizing the court’s authority under section 1203.01 to gather youth offender evidence effectuates sections 3051 and 4801.

For inmates who seek to preserve evidence following a final judgment, the proper avenue is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision that establishes the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicates when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred.

Consistent with Franklin and the court’s inherent authority, the offender shall have the opportunity to place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.

Neither the passage of significant time, nor the fact that the defendant has had prior parole hearings is a bar to the court granting a Franklin hearing. The Legislature intended that the benefits of youth offender parole hearings be available even to those prisoners with decades-old convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 453, 458-459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 751

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s denial of a Franklin proceeding for abuse of discretion. In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion we are required to ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

Fifth Holding:

The defendant’s motion contained sufficient information. Nothing in Cook indicates the motion bust describe with precision the vidence the offender seeks to introduce. The court’s commentary in Cook about what a motion should include is not the same as creating mandatory pleading requirements.

Courts have found there are no mandatory pleading requirements for a Franklin motion, and the required showing to initiate the process for a Franklin proceeding is minimal: due to the limited resources generally available to inmates, the Cook court reasonably envisioned a simple pleading mechanism to get the process started.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 896

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 001005

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 barred punishment for the vandalism counts because those offenses involved the same course of conduct and objective as the attempted burglaries. We modify the judgment to impose concurrent terms on the three vandalism, stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the corrected sentence

First Holding:

Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

If, on the other hand, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94

Second Holding:

When a trial court determines that section 654 prohibits multiple punishments, it must impose a sentence for the conviction for which punishment is disallowed but stay its execution. Dismissal or imposition of a concurrent sentence is prohibited.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

Third Holding:

While the trial court’s abstract of judgment properly stayed execution of punishment on vandalism two of the three counts subject to section 654, the abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control when it differs from the trial court’s oral judgment.

Here, the court’s language at sentencing was ambiguous: it said the vandalism counts would be “concurrent” and they “are 654” without expressly staying imposition of the concurrent sentences. Because the trial court verbally imposed an unauthorized sentence in violation of section 654, we direct that the abstract of judgment be corrected to the extent necessary to comply with section 654.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001004

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal following remand from the defendant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to impose sentence on several counts whose punishment it stayed under section 654. It failed to impose a fine on a fifth count, and it improperly reimposed several other fines.

First Holding:

The court’s failure to pronounce sentence on some of the counts constitutes an unauthorized sentence. When a trial court determines that section 654 applies, the court must impose sentence on every count but stay execution as necessary to implement section 654. This procedure also applies when one of the sentences pertains to a misdemeanor conviction.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380

Second Holding:

The defendant’s conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (driving under the influence) requires a fine, but the court failed to impose a fine.

Authority:

VEH 23536(a)

VEH 23600

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [defining an unauthorized sentence as one that cannot lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in a particular case]

Third Holding:

Having concluded that the trial court’s failure to impose sentences and to impose a fine resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we also conclude that remand is required to correct the errors. In other cases, we have exercised our authority under section 1260 to modify judgments in sentencing matters where remand would be futile or unnecessary because the record clearly indicated how the trial court would exercise its sentencing discretion.

Here, however, the trial court did not impose sentences on counts two, four, seven, and nine or the firearm enhancement associated with count two, or impose a fine on count six, either at the original sentencing or at the section 1172.75 resentencing. Given the range of sentencing options for the omitted counts and enhancement and the permissible range of the fine on count six, the record does not clearly indicate what sentences or fine the court would have imposed. Accordingly, remand is required.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894, 1896

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Fourth Holding:

We disagree with the People that on remand, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing. Section 1260 grants appellate courts the authority to order limited remands for further proceedings that may be appropriate under the circumstances. In resentencing the defendant in 2025, the trial court considered the relevant factors in formulating a sentence it deemed appropriate based on his culpability, criminal history, and his risk of future dangerousness.

The two limited tasks on remand (imposing and staying sentences on the omitted counts that the court had already indicated it intended to stay and imposing a fine on count six) will not alter the overall sentencing scheme the trial court deemed appropriate such that resentencing on all nine counts would be required.

For these reasons, we order a limited remand.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 948-949

People v. Stevens (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1452, 1456 [Correcting a sentencing error by excising only the flawed component of the sentence from the aggregate term may be appropriate in some contexts where the interests of justice and judicial economy do not require a restructuring of the entire sentencing format]

Fifth Holding:

The court erred in reimposing and staying several fees, despite making an implied finding that the defendant did not have an ability to pay. Equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Neither of the applicable statutes nor Kopp allows a trial court to impose then stay the court operations fee or the court facilities fee after it finds a defendant indigent. Once it found the defendant lacked the ability to pay, the court’s option was to not impose the fees.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Sixth Holding:

The statutes authorizing certain other fees that were previously imposed have since been repealed and are now unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fees must be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that 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. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction 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 a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show 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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320-321

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 872

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312