People v. Arendtsz
247 Cal. App. 4th 613
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2006 Granville Arendtsz pleaded nolo contendere to felony sexual battery (Pen. Code § 243.4).
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor twice told Arendtsz that if he was not a U.S. citizen the conviction "will result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States and denial of naturalization."
- In 2015 Arendtsz moved under Pen. Code § 1016.5 to vacate his plea, asserting he was not advised he could be denied discretionary immigration relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal) and claiming he would not have pleaded had he known.
- The trial court denied the § 1016.5 motion, finding the on-the-record advisement complied with the statute and Arendtsz failed to show prejudice.
- On appeal the court reviewed whether the statutory § 1016.5 advisement was sufficient and whether Arendtsz established prejudice that would entitle him to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 1016.5 on-the-record advisement was adequate | The People: the court complied with § 1016.5 by advising of deportation, exclusion, and denial of naturalization | Arendtsz: the advisement was insufficient because it did not warn that plea could bar discretionary relief (asylum, cancellation, withholding) | Held: advisement satisfied § 1016.5; no further judicial advisement required |
| Whether defendant demonstrated prejudice from any alleged nonadvisement | The People: defendant was told plea "will result" in deportation, so no reasonable probability he would have refused plea | Arendtsz: he would have gone to trial if told plea would cause mandatory deportation or loss of relief | Held: defendant failed to prove prejudice; his declaration contradicted the record and lacked corroboration |
| Whether Padilla v. Kentucky requires expanded judicial advisements under § 1016.5 | The People: Padilla addresses ineffective-assistance claims, not the court’s § 1016.5 duty; § 1016.5’s text governs | Arendtsz: Padilla and changed federal deportation law require courts to give more specific warnings about discretionary relief | Held: Padilla does not alter § 1016.5’s textual requirements; trial courts need not advise on asylum/cancellation |
| Whether legislative intent or changes in federal law expand § 1016.5’s scope | The People: legislative fairness language does not override the statute’s narrow, text-based advisement requirement | Arendtsz: legislative intent and loss of judicial relief mechanisms since 1977 mean courts must give fuller warnings | Held: court will not rewrite statute; statutory text controls and suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Totari, 28 Cal.4th 876 (explains elements required for relief under § 1016.5)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (ineffective-assistance rule concerning counsel's duty to advise about deportation risk)
- People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (defendant bears burden to show prejudice; must credibly state would not have pleaded)
- People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal.4th 183 (standards for § 1016.5 review and prejudice inquiry)
- People v. Chien, 159 Cal.App.4th 1283 (§ 1016.5 advisement limited to the three consequences listed in subdivision (a))
Disposition
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Arendtsz’s § 1016.5 motion.