Error and/or relief
The defendant appeals the denial of his motion under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate his 2022 conviction by a no-contest plea. He contends he was unable to defend against and meaningfully understand the adverse immigration consequences of his conviction because of his defense counsel’s prejudicial errors. We conclude the defendant has met his burden of establishing error under section 1473.7. His counsel’s attempts to negotiate an immigration-safe plea were insufficient. Counsel proposed a plea that was unlikely to be accepted by the People, instead of a plea to an alternative, immigration-safe offense that was comparable to the People’s offer. The defendant also established by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for his counsel’s error, he would not have entered a plea. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of his motion and direct the superior court to vacate his conviction.
First Holding:
A person who is no longer in criminal custody may file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence if 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. The court shall grant the motion to vacate the conviction or sentence if the moving party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of such grounds for relief.
Authority:
PEN 1473.7
Second Holding:
The moving party must also establish that 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 a petitioner must first show that an error occurred—specifically, that he or she was unable to either meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the immigration consequences of his conviction.
Authority:
People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319
People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 958
Third Holding:
The focus of this showing is the defendant’s own error. To establish error, a petitioner may, but need not, prove he received ineffective assistance from his counsel.
Authority:
PEN 1473.7(a)(1)
People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 958-959
Fourth Holding:
Even if the motion is based upon errors by counsel, the moving party need not also establish a Sixth Amendment violation as by demonstrating that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
Authority:
People v. Benitez-Torres (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1268
Fifth Holding:
The petitioner must demonstrate that the error was prejudicial.
Authority:
PEN 1473.7(a)(1)
People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 528