32 Cal.App.5th 998
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2009 Camacho (born in Mexico, brought to the U.S. at age 2) pleaded nolo contendere to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code §11359) under a no-custody felony plea; counsel and court discussed possible later expungement under §1203.4.
- In 2016 the §1203.4 petition was granted and the conviction was expunged; in 2017 a Proposition 64 petition reduced the offense to a misdemeanor.
- In 2017 Camacho filed a Penal Code §1473.7 motion to vacate the original conviction, alleging prejudicial error that damaged his ability to understand or defend against adverse immigration consequences of his plea.
- Trial counsel testified he warned generally of deportation risk and hoped to seek expungement or reduction, but did not investigate immigration law or advise specifics; Camacho testified he did not understand the plea’s mandatory deportation/exclusion consequences and would not have pled if he had.
- The trial court denied the §1473.7 motion, reasoning relief was premature (no removal proceedings) and that counsel’s performance met prevailing standards; the Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1473.7 requires proof of ineffective assistance (Strickland) before relief | People: moving party must show counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and prejudice under Strickland | Camacho: statute need not require an IAC showing; §1473.7 allows relief for prejudicial errors damaging understanding of immigration consequences | Court: amended §1473.7 does not require an ineffective-assistance showing; a finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include IAC |
| Whether a §1473.7 motion must await actual removal proceedings | People: trial court treated motion as premature without initiated deportation | Camacho: motion may be filed based on potential adverse immigration consequences once moving party acts with reasonable diligence | Court: moving party need not wait for actual proceedings; potential consequences suffice under §1473.7 and case law |
| Whether Camacho proved prejudicial error damaging his ability to understand or defend against immigration consequences | People: argued record advisement and counsel’s statements undermined Camacho’s claim; contested prejudice | Camacho: produced testimony showing lack of meaningful understanding and that he would have rejected the plea if informed | Court: Camacho proved by a preponderance that errors impaired his ability to understand and that he would have declined the plea; prejudice established under §1473.7 standards |
| Remedy once prejudice shown | People: trial court denied motion so did not address remedy | Camacho: requests vacatur and ability to withdraw plea | Court: reversed denial and remanded with instruction to grant the §1473.7 motion and vacate the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise about deportation risks)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla is not retroactive as a new rule in federal postconviction context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective-assistance standard for performance and prejudice)
- People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (state court on immigration consequences and plea vacatur principles)
- In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (California on collateral consequences and counsel duties)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958 (prejudice analysis recognizes defendant’s willingness to reject plea to avoid deportation)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (definition and consequences of aggravated felony/status for immigration)
- Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (vacated state convictions may still be deportable depending on reason for vacatur)