People v. Espinoza, 522 P.3d 1074

Juventino Espinoza, a lawful permanent resident since 1986 who came to the U.S. at age 13, pleaded no contest in 2004 to multiple charges, served 365 days in jail, and received probation.
At plea, the court gave the general §1016.5 immigration advisement, but trial counsel (and a Spanish-speaking assistant) did not explain that the plea risked deportation; Espinoza says he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences.
Espinoza lived and worked in California for decades, was the family’s primary provider and caregiver, and remained publicly active in the community after his conviction.
He first learned of the immigration consequences in 2015 when immigration officials detained him at the airport and seized his green card.
Espinoza filed three motions to vacate under Penal Code §1473.7 (2017–2019); the trial court denied them without an evidentiary hearing, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The California Supreme Court granted review, held Espinoza met §1473.7’s prejudice showing under the totality of the circumstances, reversed the Court of Appeal, and remanded to vacate his conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Espinoza adequately corroborated that immigration consequences were a paramount concern and thus showed "prejudicial error" under Penal Code §1473.7	Espinoza failed to provide sufficient objective, contemporaneous corroboration (no plea-counsel declaration, no contemporaneous confusion), so he cannot show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea	Espinoza’s declarations, many supporting letters, community ties, lack of prior record, and an immigration expert’s declaration showing immigration‑safe alternatives suffice to corroborate and show he would likely have rejected the plea	Court reversed: applying independent review, the totality (long U.S. residence, family ties, lack of prior record, expert declaration) establishes a reasonable probability Espinoza would have rejected the plea; relief ordered under §1473.7
Standard of review and permissible evidence when trial court denies an evidentiary hearing	Defer to lower court’s credibility determinations where appropriate; emphasize need for objective corroboration	Where the trial court made no factual findings based on live testimony, appellate court should apply independent review and consider defendant’s declarations as objective evidence	Independent review applies when no evidentiary hearing occurred; defendant declarations count as objective evidence and Vivar is not a rigid checklist — courts must weigh the totality of circumstances

People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (defendant must show reasonable probability he would have rejected plea if properly advised about immigration consequences)
People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (assess probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome and weight of plea vs. trial terms)
Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. _ (Sup. Ct.) (2017) (factors relevant to prejudice inquiry in plea/immigration context)
People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (examining community ties and availability of immigration‑neutral dispositions)
People v. Rodriguez, 68 Cal.App.5th 301 (availability of immigration‑safe plea and relevance of criminal history)
People v. Alatorre, 70 Cal.App.5th 747 (behavior after conviction can indicate whether defendant understood deportability)