People v. Novoa
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 254
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- In 2003 Raul Novoa (a lawful permanent resident) pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale pursuant to a plea agreement (180 days jail, 3 years probation); plea form included a modified immigration advisal (paragraph 14) signed by counsel Sean O’Connor.
- Novoa was detained in 2012 during deportation proceedings; in 2017 he moved under Penal Code §1473.7 to vacate his 2003 conviction alleging counsel failed to advise or negotiate to avoid immigration consequences.
- The superior court held an evidentiary hearing (live testimony from Novoa, O’Connor, expert Michael Mehr, others), found Novoa credible and O’Connor not credible, and concluded counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to meaningfully explain immigration consequences.
- The court granted the §1473.7 motion; the People appealed arguing (1) no duty existed pre‑Padilla, (2) insufficient evidence of prejudice, and (3) laches.
- The Court of Appeal independently reviewed mixed questions of law and fact, deferred to trial court factual findings supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the order vacating the plea.
Issues
| Issue | People (plaintiff) argument | Novoa (defendant) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of §1473.7 order | Order granting relief is not appealable by the People under §1237(b) | §1473.7(f) makes orders granting/denying appealable; People may appeal | Appealable; People may appeal under §1238(a)(5) to protect substantial rights |
| Pre‑Padilla duty to advise about immigration | No affirmative duty in 2003 to investigate/advise except to avoid affirmative misadvice (Resendiz); Padilla is nonretroactive | Prevailing professional norms, practice guides, and local practice required counsel to identify and advise on immigration issues | On these facts, in the Fontana courthouse in 2003 counsel’s practice included advising noncitizen defendants consistent with plea advisals; court may consider practice guides and expert testimony to establish prevailing norms |
| Ineffective assistance / prejudice | Even if deficient, Novoa cannot prove prejudice (would not have rejected plea or had realistic chance at trial); modified plea form and counsel’s signatures show advice occurred | Novoa would have rejected plea if informed of deportation risk; strong U.S. connections make immigration consequence central; trial court found him credible | Trial court’s credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence; O’Connor’s performance fell below prevailing norms and Novoa suffered prejudice (reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea) |
| Laches (People’s equitable defense) | 14‑year delay is unreasonable and prejudicial to People | Motion filed shortly after §1473.7 became effective (2017); statute creates new remedy and timing is reasonable | Laches fails: motion filed within months of statutory effective date; People did not show undue prejudice from delay |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (Cal. Ct. App.) (when asked, counsel must research and give correct immigration advice)
- People v. Barocio, 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing court’s duty to warn from counsel duties; counsel must seek judicial recommendation against deportation when appropriate)
- People v. Bautista, 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (Cal. Ct. App.) (postconviction claim based on counsel’s failure to explore alternative pleas to avoid deportation)
- In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (Cal.) (pre‑Padilla: affirmative misadvice can support ineffective assistance but courts declined to impose blanket duty to investigate immigration consequences)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S.) (Sixth Amendment requires advising about clear, prescribed deportation consequences)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (U.S.) (Padilla announced new rule not to be applied retroactively)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S.) (prejudice analysis in plea context considers weight a defendant places on deportation risk and reasonableness of rejecting a plea despite trial odds)