70 Cal.App.5th 747
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2008 Alatorre pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine for sale; in 2011 his attempted naturalization triggered immigration attention and he was deported to Mexico.
- Penal Code §1473.7 (effective Jan. 1, 2017) created postconviction relief for noncitizens who pleaded guilty without appreciating immigration consequences.
- Alatorre filed a §1473.7 motion in March 2020; the trial court denied it as untimely, reasoning he should have exercised "reasonable diligence" beginning when the statute took effect in 2017.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard: when adverse immigration events predate §1473.7, diligence must be measured from when the petitioner had reason to learn of the new remedy.
- Applying that standard and independently reviewing the record under People v. Vivar, the court found Alatorre’s motion timely, that he established prejudicial error, and directed the trial court to grant the motion and vacate the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the §1473.7 "reasonable diligence" clock start if the adverse immigration event predates the statute? | Start at the statute’s effective date (Jan. 1, 2017); petitioners should have sought relief then. | Start when the petitioner had a reason to learn of the remedy (an event that would prompt inquiry or counsel). | Measure diligence from the point the petitioner had reason to inquire about new relief; not automatically from the statute’s effective date. |
| Does the presumption that "everyone knows the law" bar relief for deported noncitizens who were abroad when §1473.7 enacted? | The maxim of presumed knowledge of the law should apply. | The presumption is inappropriate here, especially for foreign nationals living abroad and for a statute designed to remedy misunderstanding. | The court rejects applying the presumption conclusively; it is not appropriate to impute knowledge of a new California remedy to deported noncitizens. |
| Did Alatorre exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing §1473.7 relief? | He delayed after 2017 and lacked diligence; motion therefore untimely. | He sought counsel periodically, retained counsel after a 2019 referral and hired the Nieves firm within about a month; that is reasonably diligent. | The referral to counsel in Aug. 2019 gave him reason to look; retaining counsel by Sept. 2019 was reasonably diligent, so the motion was timely. |
| Did Alatorre prove prejudicial error and entitlement to relief on the merits? | The People contended the evidence might not show prejudice or that relief was warranted. | Alatorre showed he did not meaningfully understand deportability, has deep U.S. ties, and likely would have rejected the plea if properly informed. | On independent review the court found prejudicial error and a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea; ordered the conviction vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (Cal. 2021) (sets independent-review framework for §1473.7 proceedings)
- People v. Perez, 67 Cal.App.5th 1008 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (interprets timeliness and the trial court’s discretion under amended §1473.7)
- People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (recognizes defendant’s own misunderstanding can constitute the ‘‘error’’ under §1473.7)
- People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (focus on defendant’s subjective understanding of immigration consequences)
- Gutale v. State, 435 P.3d 728 (Or. 2019) (Oregon Supreme Court: assess whether petitioner had reason to learn of relief and whether a reasonable person in petitioner’s position would investigate)
- Bogle v. State, 423 P.3d 715 (Or. 2018) (Oregon PCPA precedent on timeliness and escape-clause principles)