People v. Espinoza
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 619
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Edgar Espinoza pled guilty on Nov. 6, 2012 to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Safety Code §11378); sentence suspended and placed on probation.
- In 2013 defendant moved to withdraw his plea under former Penal Code §1018/1016.5 grounds (claimed lack of immigration advisement); motion was denied after a hearing where counsel and defendant testified.
- After being sentenced on a probation violation in 2014, defendant was placed in removal proceedings and, three weeks after Penal Code §1473.7 became effective, filed a timely motion (Jan. 23, 2017) to vacate his conviction under §1473.7 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration advisals.
- At the §1473.7 hearing trial counsel testified he generally reviewed the Tahl form but did not recall specific discussions or note consultation with immigration counsel and did not know §11378 was an aggravated felony mandating deportation.
- Defendant testified he would not have pleaded guilty had he known the conviction mandated deportation; trial court denied the §1473.7 motion, finding the form and court admonition were sufficient.
- The appellate court found counsel’s performance objectively deficient for failing to advise that a §11378 plea was an aggravated felony mandating deportation, and that defendant established prejudice — a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised — and reversed and remanded to allow withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Espinoza) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1473.7 applies retroactively to convictions and removal proceedings predating the statute | §1473.7 does not retroactively apply | §1473.7 can apply if statutory requirements are met and motion timely | §1473.7 may apply retroactively if movant satisfies statute; court follows People v. Perez and finds movant met requirements |
| Whether counsel’s advisement about immigration consequences was deficient | Court advisements and Tahl form were sufficient; no further requirement | Counsel failed to advise that §11378 constituted an aggravated felony mandating deportation; mere Tahl recitation was deficient | Counsel’s performance was objectively deficient for not researching/advising mandatory deportation consequences |
| Whether deficient performance prejudiced defendant (would he have rejected plea?) | Defendant acknowledged plea in court and signed form; guilty plea stands | Defendant would have rejected plea or sought better deal/trial if told deportation was mandatory; long residence and family ties made deportation determinative | Prejudice established: reasonable probability defendant would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised; relief warranted |
| Remedy under §1473.7 | Motion properly denied | Vacatur and permission to withdraw plea requested | Trial court’s denial reversed; remand with directions to allow withdrawal of guilty plea |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perez, 19 Cal. App. 5th 818 (allows §1473.7 application where statutory requirements met)
- People v. Ogunmowo, 23 Cal. App. 5th 67 (ineffective assistance standard applied to counsel’s immigration advisals)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (Supreme Court recognition that deportation can be dispositive in plea decisions)
- In re Tahl, 1 Cal. 3d 122 (form and court admonitions regarding plea consequences)