People v. Aguilar, 227 Cal. App. 4th 60

Background

Aguilar, a lawful resident alien, pled nolo contendere in 2005 to a felony involving possession of a short barreled shotgun; he received one day in custody and 36 months probation.
After sentencing, Aguilar faced removal proceedings by DHS/ICE due to the firearm conviction.
He filed a petition to vacate the judgment and withdraw his plea in May 2013, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration consequences.
The trial court conducted hearings in 2013; Aguilar was not always present, and the court ultimately ruled the matter was heard off calendar for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellate court held that Aguilar was not entitled to relief under habeas corpus, coram nobis, section 1016.5, or nonstatutory postconviction motions, and affirmed the denial.
Key authorities limit relief: coram nobis is unavailable where other remedies exist; section 1016.5 limits relief to court-advised immigration consequences, not counsel’s failings; Padilla recognizes ineffective assistance but does not create a safety net when remedies lapse.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion	Aguilar contends court lacked jurisdiction due to presence requirements.	Aguilar's absence due to ICE custody did not bar merits review; remedy exists through statutes.	No meritorious jurisdictional basis; court could consider merits but later held no relief was available.
Whether any remedies are available to Aguilar	Three remedies were available: appeal under 1237, 1016.5 motion, or writ of habeas corpus.	Remedies foreclosed by law after final judgment and custody status.	All potential remedies foreclosed or inadequate under controlling authorities.
Whether relief is available under habeas corpus	Villa allows habeas relief when in state custody resulting from prior conviction.	Aguilar is not in state custody due to the conviction; ineligible for habeas relief.	Aguilar not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
Whether coram nobis relief is available	Nonstatutory relief could vacate the plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel.	Kim forecloses coram nobis for claims arising from immigration consequences tied to a plea.	Coram nobis relief not available; new facts would not have prevented judgment.
Whether section 1016.5 authorizes relief for ineffective assistance of counsel	Failure to advise on immigration consequences could be remedied under 1016.5.	1016.5 only addresses court advisement, not counsel's failures; does not give jurisdiction for such relief.	1016.5 does not provide jurisdiction for relief based on counsel's failure to advise.
Whether Padilla/Resendiz create an extra remedy when others are foreclosed	Padilla permits addressing immigration consequences post-conviction even if other avenues have lapsed.	Padilla does not create a broadly available escape hatch when remedies are exhausted.	Padilla does not authorize relief here; available remedies remain foreclosed.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Villa, 45 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 2009) (habeas relief unavailable when defendant not in state custody)
People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009) (coram nobis not available where other remedies exist; outlines 1016.5 interplay)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (ineffective assistance broadly includes immigration consequences; timing limits apply)
In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (Cal. 2001) (limitations on relief for ineffective assistance; cites standard of review)
People v. Shokur, 205 Cal.App.4th 1398 (Cal. App.4th 2012) (nonstatutory motion not an all-encompassing safety net; timing limits apply)
People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (Cal. App. 1987) (directed that ineffective assistance issues should be pursued by appeal or habeas)
People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009) (coram nobis limits; clarifies remedies for immigration-related claims)