In People v. Hernandez, a case in which it granted review three different times, the Supreme Court yesterday held a 36-year U.S. resident (20 plus years as a lawful permanent resident) was entitled to vacate her 2013 conviction for unlawful transportation of marijuana and unlawful possession of marijuana for sale. The conviction followed her guilty plea. Later, returning from a trip to Mexico that was approved by the probation department, immigration officials detained her and started removal proceedings. The court concluded Penal Code section 1473.7 required vacation of the conviction because the defendant established that when she pled guilty, she did not, in the words of the statute, “meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.”
We speculated that the court’s most recent review grant was a “rescue mission.”
The court’s opinion is by Justice Groban. Justice Corrigan filed a concurring and dissenting opinion.
The court said the Legislature recognized that, “[f]or a noncitizen criminal defendant who is considering whether to enter a guilty plea, preserving the right to remain in the United States is often a crucial consideration.” It found that the defendant “did not meaningfully understand” the deportation consequences of her plea (focusing on the defendant’s “subjective understanding”), that “she did not receive the advice necessary to either meaningfully defend against or knowingly accept those consequences,” and that, “were it not for these errors, there is a reasonable probability that she would have rejected the plea offer and either attempted to negotiate a plea with less dire immigration consequences or taken her case to trial.”
The superior court denied the defendant’s section 1473.7 motion, but the Supreme Court independently reviewed the evidence, mostly, deferring to “factual findings to the extent that they turn on [the superior court’s] assessment of [the defendant’s] credibility” and to “findings based on the trial court’s observations of [the defendant] during the plea proceedings,” but not to superior court findings based on documentary evidence. The opinion includes an extended discussion of types of relevant evidence and says the fact defendant “was given the immigration consequences advisement contained in the plea form . . . does not defeat her showing of error.”
Justice Corrigan’s concurrence and dissent criticizes the majority for not sufficiently clarifying the law about section 1473.7 motions and advocates for a remand instead of the majority’s direction to grant the defendant’s motion. “It appears there may have been legal error here,” Corrigan writes. “We should direct the trial court to determine whether this is so, applying the guidance the statute and our opinion provide,” and the trial court should “consider [the defendant’s] motion and determine the factual and credibility questions it raises.” She “disagree[s] with the majority opinion’s holding that we may independently reweigh the evidence to conclude on our own that [the defendant] has established prejudicial legal error.”
The court reverses a 2-1 Fifth District Court of Appeal unpublished opinion.
Related:
Deported defendant who won in the Supreme Court returns to the U.S.
