People v. Morales, 25 Cal. App. 5th 502

Background

In 2002 Morales pleaded nolo contendere to a felony methamphetamine possession-for-sale charge, served his sentence, voluntarily left the U.S. for Mexico, and later reentered.
In 2017, after California enacted Penal Code § 1473.7 (effective Jan. 1, 2017), Morales moved to vacate his 2002 conviction under § 1473.7(a)(1), alleging counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him the plea would cause adverse immigration consequences that foreclosed a U visa.
Morales submitted declarations and evidence that he cooperated with law enforcement in a 2009 robbery (seeking a U visa) and that an immigration attorney later told him his 2002 conviction would bar U visa relief.
The district attorney opposed the motion, arguing § 1473.7(b) requires that motions be filed only after removal proceedings are initiated or a removal order becomes final.
The superior court denied Morales’s motion without prejudice, holding § 1473.7(b) “triggers” the right to file only upon notice to appear or a final removal order; Morales appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding § 1473.7(a)(1) authorizes motions based on "actual or potential adverse immigration consequences" (not limited to removal), and § 1473.7(b) addresses timeliness only when removal proceedings exist.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1473.7 authorizes a motion to vacate based on adverse immigration consequences absent removal proceedings	Morales: §1473.7(a)(1)'s "actual or potential adverse immigration consequences" is broad and permits filing when conviction impedes relief like a U visa	DA: §1473.7(b) makes initiation of removal proceedings or a final removal order a precondition to filing	Court: Held §1473.7(a)(1) authorizes motions for adverse immigration consequences beyond removal; (b) governs timeliness only where removal proceedings exist
Whether § 1473.7(b) should be construed to bar filing until the later removal-related event occurs	Morales: (and AG) (same) restricting (b) to timeliness avoids absurd delay and preserves §1473.7's purpose	DA: (same as above) (b) are preconditions to ensure prejudice	Court: Rejected precondition reading as absurd and contrary to plain text and legislative history
Whether superior court should have reached merits of Morales’s ineffective-assistance claim	Morales: Court erred by refusing to consider merits because motion was authorized	DA: Court could deny as premature or on merits	Court: Remanded so trial court may consider merits consistent with opinion
Whether legislative history supports broad reading of § 1473.7	Morales: Legislative history shows intent to address immigration consequences generally, not only removal	DA: Argued focus on removal and prejudice; district court relied on removal focus	Court: Found legislative history (and references to §1016.5) supports broad application

Key Cases Cited

People v. Perez, 19 Cal.App.5th 818 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (construed §1473.7’s timeliness where defendant faced removal proceedings)
In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (Cal. 2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1076 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (apply plain and commonsense meaning to statutory words)
People v. Broussard, 5 Cal.4th 1067 (Cal. 1993) (avoid statutory interpretations that produce absurd results)
Randle v. City & County of San Francisco, 186 Cal.App.3d 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (definition of "prosecute" includes pursuing to conclusion)
People v. Zamudio, 23 Cal.4th 183 (Cal. 2000) (§1016.5 remedial relief when court fails to give immigration admonition)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences of pleas)
People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009) (limitations of coram nobis and habeas remedies)
People v. Villa, 45 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 2009) (limitations of coram nobis and habeas remedies)
People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (Cal. 2013) (§1016.5 and related plea-admonition principles)