People v. Araujo, 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843

Background

Appellant Cirila Verastegui Araujo pled guilty (Nov. 15, 2013) to first‑degree residential burglary pursuant to a negotiated disposition: probation with 365 days county jail; a robbery count was dismissed.
Appellant signed a written "Felony Disposition Statement" that contained a printed advisement about possible immigration consequences under Penal Code § 1016.5; she initialed the advisement and acknowledged a Spanish interpreter read the form to her.
The trial court found the plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and later suspended imposition of sentence, granting three years probation and 233 days credit.
Appellant was subject to an immigration hold and had previously been served with a Notice to Appear and had voluntarily returned to Mexico in 2009 to avoid federal prosecution for unlawful reentry.
In Oct. 2014 new counsel moved to vacate the plea under § 1016.5, arguing the advisement was deficient (e.g., interpreter did not sign and the form’s language was misleading). The trial court denied the motion, finding the advisement adequate and that appellant was not prejudiced.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether written § 1016.5 advisement may substitute for oral admonition	Plaintiff (People) argued a validly executed written advisement can satisfy § 1016.5 and the court may rely on the signed form and interpreter acknowledgments.	Araujo argued the court was required to give a verbal § 1016.5 advisement and the written form was inadequate.	Held: Written advisement is an acceptable substitute; oral admonition not required where there is substantial compliance.
Whether the written advisement was misleading/surplus language vitiating compliance	People: surplus language does not vitiate the advisement; statute requires advising of possible consequences, not an exhaustive list.	Araujo: form language could mislead a defendant to think deportation occurs only for listed offenses, making advisement inadequate.	Held: Form substantially complied; superfluous language does not negate the advisement.
Whether appellant established prejudice from any deficient advisement (i.e., would have gone to trial)	People: appellant failed to show she would have pleaded differently given favorable negotiated deal and her criminal history; conviction after trial would have same immigration effects.	Araujo: claimed she only realized immigration consequences after ICE custody and would not have pled had she known.	Held: No prejudice shown; appellant’s statements were not corroborated and record showed knowledge of immigration exposure.
Whether trial court abused factual findings about interpreter and understanding of plea	People: record (minutes, probation report, appellant’s own statements) supports findings that interpreter read form and appellant understood consequences.	Araujo: pointed to interpreter not signing the form and argued she was not properly advised.	Held: Trial court’s factual findings are supported; no reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Totari, 28 Cal.4th 876 (defendant must show nonadvisement, possibility of adverse immigration consequence, and prejudice to prevail under § 1016.5)
People v. Ramirez, 71 Cal.App.4th 519 (validly executed waiver form can substitute for oral admonishment)
People v. Gutierrez, 106 Cal.App.4th 169 (court may rely on executed advisement form; substantial compliance suffices)
People v. Quesada, 230 Cal.App.3d 525 (statutory admonition need not be given orally)
People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal.4th 183 (Legislature intended advisements to cover potential adverse immigration consequences; substantial compliance standard)
In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (self‑serving declarations insufficient to show prejudice from deficient plea advisement)
In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal.4th 924 (defendant’s claim of prejudice from plea must be corroborated by objective evidence)
People v. Barocio, 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (no duty to advise on collateral immigration relief beyond § 1016.5)