People v. Longoria CA5, F079267

Background

In May 2014 Audon Soto Longoria (with a Spanish interpreter) pled guilty to felony assault likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245(a)(4)); the court advised and he acknowledged that a noncitizen conviction can result in deportation.
He received 36 months probation with 180 days custody; other counts were dismissed. In 2017 the BIA held felony assault was a crime involving moral turpitude subjecting a noncitizen to deportation.
In January 2019 Longoria filed a Penal Code § 1473.7 motion to vacate his plea, claiming he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences because counsel misadvised him (told him the felony could be reduced/expunged) and the law was unsettled at the time of the plea.
Longoria submitted a declaration and testified that, had he known about deportation risk, he would have rejected the plea (waited for another offer or gone to trial) to remain with his family in the U.S.
The trial court denied the motion, finding Longoria failed to meet his burden and had been informed of, and said he understood, the deportation admonition; the court also implicitly rejected his credibility.
On appeal the court affirmed, assuming arguendo there was an advisement error but holding Longoria failed to prove prejudice (no sufficient corroboration of his claim and trial-court credibility findings supported denial).

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Longoria’s Argument	Held
Whether Longoria’s §1473.7 motion should be granted because he did not meaningfully understand immigration consequences	The motion should be denied because the court advised Longoria, he said he understood, and he failed to meet the preponderance burden	Counsel misadvised and law was unsettled, so Longoria did not meaningfully understand deportation risk	Denied — court assumed possible error but concluded Longoria failed to prove prejudice
Whether a post-plea change/clarification in immigration law is the kind of error remedied by §1473.7	People contended Longoria must still prove prejudice under the statute	Longoria argued post-plea developments rendered his plea prejudicial because deportation risk crystallized later	Court assumed error might exist but required and found no prejudice; did not squarely adopt a rule for post-plea changes
Whether Longoria showed prejudice — reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea if properly advised	Prejudice not shown: contemporaneous record and Longoria’s admission that he heard and understood the court admonition undercut his claim	He would have rejected the plea to avoid deportation; family ties and hardship would have motivated him	Held prejudice not shown: testimony and declaration were uncorroborated and trial-court credibility findings were entitled to deference
Whether counsel’s later disbarment and alleged failures (e.g., not filing §17(b)/§1203.4 motions) corroborate misadvice	Disbarment and failures do not establish an affirmative promise of immigration clemency or substitute for objective corroboration	Disbarment supports Longoria’s claim counsel misled him and failed to protect immigration interests	Held disbarment does not compel relief; lack of objective corroboration and no express promise meant denial was proper

Key Cases Cited

People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (supreme court holding test for prejudice under §1473.7 and instructing courts to consider totality of circumstances)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. Supreme Court on using contemporaneous evidence and totality of circumstances to assess what a defendant would have done)
People v. Patterson, 2 Cal.5th 885 (California Supreme Court noting complexity and uncertainty of immigration consequences)
People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (discussing that a defendant’s misunderstanding alone can ground §1473.7 relief but corroboration and prejudice still required)
People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (discussing corroboration and prejudice analysis under §1473.7)
People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (on assessing plea negotiation context and immigration-neutral dispositions)
People v. Uribe, 199 Cal.App.4th 836 (deference to trial court credibility findings)