People v. Casas CA2/2, B301841

In 2002 Casas pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5(a)) and dissuading a witness by force (§ 136.1(c)(1)) and was sentenced to three years under a plea agreement.
After the plea Casas continued to make threatening calls to the victim; he also had prior convictions and was on felony probation at the time of the plea.
In 2018 Casas filed a Penal Code § 1473.7 motion to vacate his 2002 plea, alleging he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences and would not have pleaded guilty if he had.
At the § 1473.7 hearing Casas and his 2002 counsel testified; the trial court reviewed the 2002 plea transcript and prior advisals under § 1016.5.
The trial court found Casas not credible, concluded he had been advised of immigration consequences, and found no prejudice (it was not reasonably probable he would have declined the plea given the risk of much longer prison exposure).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, applying deferential review to the trial court’s credibility and factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Casas proved he was unable to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his 2002 plea under § 1473.7	People: transcript and history show Casas was advised under § 1016.5; trial court’s credibility finding should stand	Casas: counsel did not adequately advise him of immigration consequences and law was unclear in 2002 about § 273.5 being an immigration-removing offense	Court: affirmed — trial court’s credibility finding that Casas was advised and understood is supported; defendant failed to prove lack of understanding
Whether Casas proved prejudice (reasonable probability he would not have pleaded)	People: even without immigration consequences, Casas faced substantial prison exposure and probation violation, so no reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea	Casas: would not have pleaded if he had known immigration consequences	Court: affirmed — trial court reasonably found no prejudice given likely longer exposure if he proceeded to trial or faced probation revocation

People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (explaining § 1473.7 requires showing inability to meaningfully understand immigration consequences and prejudice)
People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (establishing prejudice standard: reasonably probable defendant would not have pleaded)
People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (deference to trial court credibility findings and standards of review)
People v. Ogunmowo, 23 Cal.App.5th 67 (substantial-evidence review of factual findings on § 1473.7 motions)
People v. Tapia, 26 Cal.App.5th 942 (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)
People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (discussing burden on defendant under § 1473.7)
Carrillo v. Holder, 781 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir.) (clarified that Cal. Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a crime of domestic violence for immigration purposes)