People v. Mbaabu
213 Cal. App. 4th 1139
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Nyaga Kirimi Mbaabu pled guilty to one count of criminal threats as a misdemeanor with a 365‑day term; the remaining charge was dismissed.
- Prior to plea, competence doubts led to suspensions under § 1368; defendant regained competence January 8, 2010 and proceedings resumed.
- Counsel did not discuss immigration consequences or Padilla-like effects; a 365‑day term would render the conviction an aggravated felony, but counsel reportedly would have sought 364 days.
- Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held counsel must advise of automatic deportation consequences; Padilla decision issued March 31, 2010.
- November 2011, new counsel moved to reduce sentence and later amended to withdraw the plea based on lack of immigration advice; motion denied.
- January 2012, same counsel filed a petition to vacate judgment; February 7, 2012, motion granted reinstating felony charges; People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is coram nobis an appropriate remedy for ineffective‑assistance claims? | People: coram nobis not appropriate for ineffectiveness. | Mbaabu: coram nobis valid for constitutional claims like ineffective assistance. | Coram nobis not proper vehicle for ineffective assistance; not a valid basis. |
| If treated as a habeas petition, was the motion timely or proper? | People: habeas not timely or appropriate; improper vehicle. | Mbaabu: habeas could be proper grounds for relief. | As habeas, the petition was untimely and duplicative with no demonstrated prejudice. |
| Did the trial court err in granting relief on the Padilla claim under either coram nobis or habeas grounds? | People: no error; remedy improper. | Mbaabu: Padilla should warrant relief. | Trial court abused its discretion; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shipman, 62 Cal.2d 226 (Cal. 1965) (writ of coram nobis framework and three-part test)
- People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009) (coram nobis not available for ineffective assistance; limits on relief)
- In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (Cal. 2001) (ineffective assistance standards for habeas)
- People v. Castaneda, 37 Cal.App.4th 1612 (Cal. App. 1995) (duty to admonish immigration consequences; differences between 1016.5 and 1018)
- In re Reno, 55 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2012) (burden on petitioner to show absence of substantial delay)
- People v. Villa, 45 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 2009) (constructive custody limits for habeas challenges after conviction)