People v. Mejia
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In 1994 Fernando Vargas Mejia pleaded guilty to three drug offenses; he is a noncitizen and now faces mandatory deportation as a result of those convictions.
- Mejia testified his trial counsel never discussed immigration consequences and that, had he known the plea made him deportable, he would have declined the plea and risked going to trial.
- Mejia filed a Penal Code section 1473.7 motion in 2017 to vacate the convictions for a "prejudicial error" damaging his ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept immigration consequences; the trial court denied the motion applying ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC/Strickland) analysis.
- While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 1473.7 (effective Jan. 2019) to clarify that a finding of legal invalidity "may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel," and the amendment is treated as clarifying and retroactive to nonfinal judgments.
- The Court of Appeal held that under the amended statute a movant need only prove by a preponderance that (1) he did not meaningfully understand or knowingly accept the immigration consequences of the plea, and (2) had he understood, there is a reasonable probability he would have defended against the charges (i.e., rejected the plea). The court reversed and directed the trial court to allow Mejia to withdraw his pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mejia) | Defendant's Argument (AG / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 1473.7 requires proof of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) to obtain relief | Mejia: No; statute focuses on defendant's misunderstanding or lack of knowing acceptance of immigration consequences, not solely counsel error | AG/Trial court: Yes (prior to amendment courts read §1473.7 to require Strickland IAC analysis) | Held: No; amendment clarifies IAC is not required — a prejudicial error by the defendant (lack of meaningful understanding/knowing acceptance) suffices |
| Standard for "prejudicial error" and prejudice under amended §1473.7 | Mejia: Preponderance showing he did not meaningfully understand and would likely have rejected the plea if he had | AG: The trial court reasonably concluded Mejia would not have rejected the plea given the strength of the case and his circumstances | Held: Prejudice is shown if there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have declined the plea and risked trial (even a "Hail Mary"); Mejia met that standard |
| Role of contemporaneous evidence in assessing credibility/prejudice | Mejia: Court should consider contemporaneous facts (ties to U.S., plea type, bail status) to corroborate his claim | AG: Emphasizes factual differences vis-à-vis prior cases and trial-court skepticism about testimony | Held: Contemporaneous evidence is relevant and here supports Mejia (long U.S. residence, family ties, straight-up plea, weak aspects of prosecution evidence) |
| Remedy when §1473.7 prejudice established | Mejia: Vacatur of conviction and allow withdrawal of plea | AG: Varied factual response; does not dispute remedy when statute satisfied | Held: Reverse denial and remand with direction to allow Mejia to withdraw his 1994 guilty pleas |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (recognizes deportation as a severe consequence and counsel's duty to advise on immigration consequences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (movant may show reasonable probability he would have rejected plea leading to deportation even if plea reduced prison time)
- People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (interpreting amended §1473.7 to permit relief without proving IAC; remand to grant motion)
- People v. Espinoza, 27 Cal.App.5th 908 (applied Strickland standards under §1473.7 prior to amendment)
- People v. Ogunmowo, 23 Cal.App.5th 67 (remand to allow withdrawal of plea where §1473.7 relief appropriate)