People v. Mendoza CA2/8, B305305

Defendant Saul Alejandro Mendoza was charged with two felony counts: sale/transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Safety Code §11379(a)) (count 1) and possession for sale of methamphetamine (§11378) (count 2).
On January 10, 2012 Mendoza entered an open guilty plea; the plea transcript indicates pleas to both counts and a sentence of four years (execution suspended) with three years' probation, but the transcript is silent as to how sentence/judgment/probation applied to count 2.
The minute order inaccurately states count 2 was dismissed as part of a plea negotiation, creating ambiguity in the record about which crimes comprise the conviction.
Mendoza moved under Penal Code §1473.7 to vacate his conviction, asserting he pleaded without adequate advice about immigration consequences; the trial court (the same judge who took the plea) denied the motion, finding Mendoza understood the immigration consequences.
Immigration consequences differ by count: a conviction under §11378 is treated as drug trafficking (an aggravated felony) and triggers mandatory deportation; a conviction under §11379(a) may or may not be an aggravated felony depending on the factual basis (so deportation is less certain).
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine which crime(s) were part of Mendoza’s conviction and to resolve the §1473.7 claim in light of that determination.

Issue	People’s Argument	Mendoza’s Argument	Held
Whether Mendoza knowingly understood the immigration consequences of his open plea so that his §1473.7 motion could be denied	The trial court found Mendoza understood the immigration consequences; denial of the §1473.7 motion was proper	Mendoza pleaded without adequate advice about immigration consequences and is entitled to relief under §1473.7	Reversed and remanded: record ambiguous about which counts comprise the conviction; need to determine that first because immigration consequence (mandatory deportation) depends on whether §11378 conviction is included

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise when deportation consequence is "truly clear")
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (distinguishes offenses that are aggravated felonies for immigration purposes)
United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679 (concluding §11378 is a drug-trafficking aggravated felony)
Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121 (holding §11379(a) is not categorically an aggravated felony)
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (later Ninth Circuit decision affecting analysis of categorical approaches)
People v. Ogunmowo, 23 Cal.App.5th 67 (confirming §11378 carries mandatory deportation consequence)
In re Hernandez, 33 Cal.App.5th 530 (noting parties agreed §11378 clearly carried mandatory deportation consequence)