People v. Landaverde, 20 Cal. App. 5th 287

Appellant pled guilty in 1998 to one count of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code § 288(a)); victim was 13. Plea resulted in probation, brief custody already served, counseling, sex-offender registration, and other conditions.
In 2007 appellant entered federal removal proceedings; immigration judge found issues about whether conviction constituted a particularly serious crime for withholding of removal.
Appellant later filed motions to withdraw his plea asserting trial counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences; an earlier §1016.5 motion was denied and affirmed on appeal because the court had given the statutorily required admonition.
In 2017 appellant filed a §1473.7 motion to vacate his plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not researching/advising immigration consequences; trial court denied the motion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding §1473.7 provides a procedural vehicle for the claim but appellant failed both Strickland prongs: (1) no deficient performance because Padilla is not retroactive to cases final before Padilla; and (2) no prejudice shown under the Lee framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of §1473.7 procedural relief	§1473.7 applies and removes prior timing bars so appellant can challenge plea now	Section applies; no procedural bar asserted by respondent	§1473.7 applies; no procedural bar to appellant's motion
Whether counsel's failure to advise about immigration consequences was deficient	Landaverde: counsel failed to research/advise; thus ineffective under Strickland	Counsel had no pre-Padilla duty to advise; failure-to-advise then was not objectively unreasonable	Not deficient: Padilla duty not retroactive; no independent pre-Padilla California duty established
Retroactivity / statutory changes (Padilla, §1016.2/§1016.3)	New statutes and California law impose duties back to appellant's plea	Padilla and §1016.2/§1016.3 are not retroactive; Legislature codified Padilla and intended prospective effect	Statutes and Padilla do not apply retroactively; no basis to impose a pre-Padilla duty
Prejudice under Strickland (would he have gone to trial / likely better outcome?)	Had counsel advised, would have refused plea and insisted on trial; thus prejudice shown	Appellant received substantial benefit (probation vs. multi-year prison); weak prospects at trial; immigration concerns arose years later	No prejudicial effect established under Lee factors; appellant fails Strickland prejudice prong

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (affirmative duty to advise noncitizen defendants of deportation risk)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla rule not retroactive to convictions final before Padilla)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (prejudice analysis in plea/immigration context)
People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (timing/reasonable-diligence for coram nobis challenges)