People v. Martinez, 57 Cal. 4th 555

Background

In 1992 Rodrigo Martinez (a Mexican citizen) pleaded guilty to sale/transportation of marijuana pursuant to a plea bargain; the court record did not show the Penal Code §1016.5 immigration advisement was given, so it was presumed omitted.
He received probation and later successfully completed it; the conviction was later expunged under §1203.4 but federal immigration consequences remained, and Martinez faced removal and denial of adjustment of status.
In 2011 Martinez moved under §1016.5 to vacate his 1992 plea, claiming that, had he been warned about deportation/exclusion/denial of naturalization, he would have rejected the plea and either negotiated an immigration-neutral plea or gone to trial.
At the §1016.5 hearing the trial court considered only whether Martinez would probably have obtained a more favorable outcome by rejecting the plea; it denied relief as it found a better outcome was unlikely. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether prejudice under §1016.5 turns on what the defendant would have done or on whether a more favorable outcome was likely, and (2) whether rejecting a plea to seek a different plea (not just to go to trial) can constitute prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the proper prejudice test under §1016.5?	State: prejudice requires showing a reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have obtained a more favorable outcome (i.e., likely better result).	Martinez: prejudice is shown if it is reasonably probable he would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised (regardless of whether a better result would likely follow).	Held: Prejudice focuses on what the defendant would have done; relief may be granted if it is reasonably probable the defendant would have rejected the plea, even if a better outcome was not reasonably probable.
Can a defendant show prejudice by proving he would have sought or accepted a different, immigration-neutral plea (not only by insisting on trial)?	State: relief should require proving a reasonable probability the defendant would have insisted on going to trial.	Martinez: §1016.5 entitles defendant time to negotiate; rejecting to seek a different plea counts as prejudice.	Held: A defendant may show prejudice by proving he would have rejected the existing plea to obtain or attempt to negotiate a different plea that avoided immigration consequences; going to trial is not the only relevant alternative.
May the trial court consider likelihood of better trial outcome when assessing credibility?	State: court should consider probable trial outcome (and rely on it to deny relief).	Martinez: outcome probability is a factor for credibility but not dispositive.	Held: Probable trial outcome is a relevant credibility factor but cannot substitute for the required inquiry into what the defendant would have done.
Was Martinez entitled to relief on the record?	State: trial court correctly denied relief because a more favorable outcome was unlikely.	Martinez: the trial court never assessed whether he would have rejected the plea to seek another bargain; remand needed.	Held: Trial court applied wrong test; remand for further proceedings to allow Martinez to present evidence on whether he would have rejected the plea if properly advised.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal.4th 183 (established §1016.5 prejudice test: reasonable probability defendant would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (failure to advise about deportation can be constitutionally ineffective assistance; deportation is integral to sentencing for noncitizens)
In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (2001) (immigration consequences are material to plea decisions; courts may relieve pleas entered without such knowledge)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (reasonable-probability prejudice standard applied in plea-advice contexts)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland prejudice in plea context requires reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel’s failure that causes forfeiture of a proceeding requires a showing that the defendant was prejudiced by the loss of that proceeding)
People v. McClellan, 6 Cal.4th 367 (1993) (defendant must present evidence supporting claim of prejudice from failure to advise)
People v. Walker, 54 Cal.3d 1013 (1991) (defendant might decline a plea because of substantial restitution fines)
In re Moser, 6 Cal.4th 342 (1993) (prejudice may be shown by demonstrating reliance on plea-related sentencing/parole information)