People v. Halim, B271770

Background

FBI and LAPD joint investigation led to federal charges; Halim pleaded guilty to visa fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546(a)) and Anwar to FLSA minimum-wage violations (29 U.S.C. §§ 206(f), 215). Both were sentenced and placed on probation.
After federal pleas, Los Angeles County District Attorney indicted both for California human trafficking (Pen. Code § 236.1); Halim pled guilty to one count and Anwar to being an accessory after the fact (§ 32); remaining counts were dismissed.
Defendants moved to dismiss the state indictment arguing (inter alia) double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment (claiming the federal pleas barred state prosecution), the “sham separate sovereign” exception, prosecutorial vindictiveness, failure to consider immigration consequences (Cal. Gov. Code § 1016.3), and misuse of § 1385. The trial court denied the motion; defendants appealed.
The court reviewed whether the federal offenses and the California human-trafficking offense were the “same offense” under the Blockburger/same-elements test; it found they have distinct elements.
The court rejected claims of vindictive or arbitrary prosecution, concluded the dual-sovereignty doctrine applied (making the double jeopardy claim unavailable in any event), and found no violation of § 1016.3 or abuse of discretion under § 1385.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state prosecution is barred by Fifth Amendment double jeopardy after federal pleas	Successive state prosecution permitted because federal and state offenses have different elements; dual-sovereignty applies	Federal plea bargains should bar state prosecution for the same conduct; plea agreements should be afforded double-jeopardy effect or fall under a "sham separate sovereign" exception	Denied. Blockburger same-elements test controls; federal visa-fraud and wage offenses differ from § 236.1, so no double jeopardy protection.
Whether the “sham separate sovereign” exception applies	No sham; state acted independently to enforce state trafficking laws	Federal agents influenced LAPD/DA out of displeasure with federal plea, making state prosecution a sham to evade double jeopardy	Denied. Defendants failed to establish the threshold same-offense double jeopardy claim; record does not show the DA acted as a tool of federal authorities.
Whether the state prosecution was vindictive or violated due process	Prosecutor acted for legitimate state interests (victim protection, enforcing trafficking laws)	DA prosecuted in retaliation for accepting federal pleas, to produce immigration consequences or publicity	Denied. No presumption of vindictiveness in pretrial charging; separate sovereigns acting independently negate vindictiveness claim.
Whether DA violated § 1016.3 by not avoiding immigration consequences in plea negotiations	DA considered immigration consequences as required; no statutory violation shown	DA ignored immigration consequences and thus acted arbitrarily/capriciously	Denied. § 1016.3 requires consideration, not guaranteed avoidance; record shows immigration consequences were discussed.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (recognizing dual-sovereignty doctrine)
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (upholding state prosecution after federal proceedings; noted limits where state is mere tool)
Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (affirming successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-elements test for determining "same offense")
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (reaffirming Blockburger conduct/elements approach)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (plea-bargaining Sixth Amendment context cited by defendants)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 124 (plea-bargaining effective assistance context cited by defendants)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences)
Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (presumption of vindictiveness in certain post-trial charging circumstances)