People v. Camacho
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 398
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- In 2009 Camacho (born in Mexico, raised in U.S., married to a U.S. citizen with two U.S.-citizen children) pled nolo contendere to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11359) in exchange for no custody and felony probation; counsel sought possible early expungement under Penal Code § 1203.4.
- In 2016 the conviction was expunged under § 1203.4 and dismissed; in 2017 a Proposition 64 petition reduced the offense to a misdemeanor.
- Camacho filed a § 1473.7 motion (post-custody) arguing prejudicial errors deprived him of the ability to meaningfully understand or defend against adverse immigration consequences of his plea.
- At the § 1473.7 hearing Camacho testified he was not advised that the plea made him mandatorily deportable or permanently barred from legal status; his trial counsel admitted he gave only general deportation warnings, believed expungement/reduction might help, and had not investigated immigration consequences.
- The trial court denied the motion as premature (no deportation proceedings) and on the view counsel’s conduct met prevailing norms; the Court of Appeal reversed, applying the 2019 legislative amendment to § 1473.7 that clarified a finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The appellate court found (1) the plea was to an aggravated felony under federal law and expungement/Prop. 64 reduction would not necessarily cure immigration consequences, (2) Camacho proved errors that damaged his ability to understand the immigration risks, and (3) he proved prejudice because he would not have accepted the plea had he known the true consequences; the court remanded with directions to grant the § 1473.7 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Camacho) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1473.7 relief is available without proving ineffective assistance of counsel | § 1473.7 (as amended) requires only that a prejudicial error damaged ability to understand/defend against immigration consequences; ineffective assistance need not be shown | Relief should be limited to ineffective-assistance-type claims and subject to Padilla/Strickland analysis | Held for Camacho: amendment clarifies legal invalidity may, but need not, include ineffective assistance; no Strickland showing required |
| Whether Camacho proved counsel’s errors damaged his ability to understand immigration consequences | Counsel gave only general warnings, promised reduction/expungement would help, did not investigate, and did not advise immigration consultation; Camacho reasonably misunderstood consequences | People argued trial court correctly found no deficient performance or prejudice under prevailing norms | Held Camacho met preponderance showing that errors damaged his ability to meaningfully understand/defend against immigration consequences |
| Whether the errors were prejudicial under § 1473.7 (i.e., would Camacho have rejected the plea?) | Camacho would not have entered the plea had he known it made him mandatorily deportable; family, long residence support that testimony | People argued no reasonable probability of different outcome and trial court’s credibility/merits findings supported denial | Held Camacho established prejudice by preponderance: he would have rejected plea, so motion must be granted |
| Effect of expungement/Prop. 64 reduction on federal immigration consequences | Camacho relied on counsel’s belief expungement/reduction would help his immigration case | People contended expungement/reduction could negate immigration consequences | Held expungement and state reduction frequently do not eliminate federal immigration consequences for aggravated felonies; counsel’s assurances were incorrect and contributed to prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires advising noncitizen clients about deportation risk from guilty pleas)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule that is not retroactive in federal habeas)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (categorical analysis of convictions for immigration consequences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (2013) (state expungement often does not eliminate federal immigration consequences)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (prejudice inquiry can consider defendant’s likely decision to reject plea despite prison-time tradeoffs where deportation would follow)
- People v. Ogunmowo, 23 Cal.App.5th 67 (2018) (defendant met § 1473.7 burden where deportation risk would have caused rejection of plea)