People v. Arriaga, 58 Cal. 4th 950

Arriaga, a Mexican native, pled guilty in 1986 to possessing a sawed-off shotgun, a crime with potential deportation consequences for noncitizens.
In 2010, after federal immigration actions began against him, Arriaga moved to vacate the conviction, claiming he was not advised of immigration consequences.
The reporter’s transcript was destroyed; the plea minute order showed a checked box stating the defendant was advised of possible effects on alien/citizenship status, but was silent on specific consequences (deportation, exclusion, naturalization).
A statutory presumption of nonadvisement arose under § 1016.5(b) because the record didn’t clearly show the advisements were given.
Prosecution presented Hofman, the former prosecutor, who testified he routinely advised on immigration consequences; the trial court credited this and denied the motion to vacate; the Court of Appeal reversed in part and upheld on other grounds, leading to discretionary review.
During the course of litigation, Arriaga obtained United States citizenship, but the court proceeded to decide issues of certified appealability and standard of proof nonetheless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a certificate of probable cause required to appeal a denial of a section 1016.5 motion to vacate?	Arriaga (AG) argues a certificate is required per section 1237.5 for such appeals.	Arriaga contends no certificate is needed for appeals under section 1237(b) because this is an appeal from a postjudgment order.	No certificate required for 1016.5 appeal.
What standard of proof must rebut the presumption of nonadvisement under §1016.5(b)?	Prosecution must prove advisements by clear and convincing evidence.	Preponderance of the evidence suffices to rebut the presumption.	Preponderance of the evidence governs rebuttal.

People v. Totari, 28 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2002) (appealability of denial of 1016.5 motion under §1237; framework for final judgments)
People v. Johnson, 47 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2009) (probable cause certificate requirement; distinctions for appellate types)
Placencia, 194 Cal.App.4th 489 (Cal. App. 2011) (certificate of probable cause requirement for 1016.5 appeals)
People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (Cal. 2013) (three-part test for 1016.5 relief; burden on movant)
People v. Dubon, 90 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. App. 2001) (presumption is rebuttable in 1016.5 context)
People v. Zamudio, 23 Cal.4th 183 (Cal. 2000) (substantial rights and immigration advisements context)
Woodby v. Immigration Service, 385 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1966) (deportation standard requires clear, unequivocal, convincing evidence in immigration grounds (analogical reference))
People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 (Cal. 1978) (burden of proof considerations in various adjudications)
People v. Carroll, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009) (collateral attack burden and presumption principles (referenced in discussion of proof standards))