People v. Cardona CA2/7, B308787

In March 2005 Cardona was charged with felony corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and pleaded guilty on March 25, 2005.
Cardona signed a Tahl plea form that included an immigration advisement stating a plea “will” result in deportation; the form was signed/initialed by Cardona, his attorney, and an interpreter.
The prosecutor orally advised Cardona of the charge, the negotiated disposition, and the immigration consequences at the plea hearing; the court accepted the plea and imposed five years’ formal probation.
In January 2020 Cardona moved under Penal Code § 1473.7 to vacate the 2005 conviction, claiming he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences because counsel failed to explain or negotiate an immigration-safe plea.
At the § 1473.7 hearing Cardona testified he did not recall being advised and would not have pleaded if he had known; his former counsel testified he read the Tahl form, including the immigration advisement, with interpreter assistance.
The trial court found the contemporaneous documents and witness testimony credible, denied the motion, and this appeal followed; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cardona)	Defendant's Argument (People/Court)	Held
Whether Cardona’s plea was legally invalid under §1473.7(a)(1) because he did not meaningfully understand the plea’s immigration consequences due to counsel’s failure to advise or negotiate	Counsel never explained that the plea would result in deportation and did not seek an immigration-safe disposition; had he known he would be deported he would have rejected the plea	Contemporaneous Tahl form (signed/initialed), interpreter attestation, counsel’s testimony he read the advisement, and the in-court advisement put Cardona on notice; court credited that evidence	Denied: Cardona failed to prove by a preponderance that he did not meaningfully understand or that he would have rejected the plea; affirmed
Whether the written/oral advisements here were adequate under controlling precedent (e.g., Patterson)	Patterson shows a bare or vague advisement may be insufficient to permit withdrawal	The Tahl and oral advisements here used "will" (not "may"), were read with interpreter, and thus adequately informed Cardona of deportation risk	Held adequate: Patterson distinguished because advisement here warned that deportation "will" result; not grounds for relief

People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (establishes burden and "reasonable probability" prejudice test under §1473.7)
People v. Patterson, 2 Cal.5th 885 (addresses adequacy of immigration advisements and when a defendant may withdraw a plea)
People v. Rodriguez, 68 Cal.App.5th 301 (interprets §1473.7 standards and factors for assessing reasonable probability)
People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (shows how objective evidence can support a claim that defendant did not understand immigration consequences)
People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (emphasizes defendant's mindset at the time of plea as central to §1473.7 analysis)