People v. Patterson
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 95
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ron Patterson, a Canadian citizen present in the U.S. since 1996, pleaded guilty at a preliminary hearing to evading a peace officer and possession of MDMA; other counts were dismissed and he received probation with custody days.
- Before pleading, Patterson signed a plea form containing the mandatory Penal Code §1016.5 advisement that a conviction “may” have immigration consequences; he told the court he understood the form.
- Six months later Patterson moved under Penal Code §1018 to withdraw the plea, claiming he and trial counsel were unaware the MDMA conviction would result in mandatory deportation and that, had they known, he would have sought an immigration-neutral disposition or gone to trial.
- He supported the motion with his declaration and an immigration expert declaration explaining the plea produced mandatory removal and no cancellation relief; trial counsel did not provide a declaration and reportedly told him to consult immigration counsel.
- The trial court denied the §1018 motion as legally insufficient because Patterson had received the §1016.5 advisement; the Court of Appeal affirmed and also denied Patterson’s habeas claims. The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, remanding for the trial court to exercise its §1018 discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does receipt of the generic §1016.5 advisement bar a §1018 motion to withdraw a plea based on ignorance that the plea caused mandatory deportation? | AG: The §1016.5 warning put Patterson on notice so he cannot later claim ignorance; generic warning suffices. | Patterson: The generic “may” warning did not convey that this specific plea carried a near-certain, mandatory deportation consequence; ignorance of that specific risk can be good cause. | Court: Receipt of §1016.5 advisement does not categorically bar §1018 relief; remand for trial court to decide on the merits using its discretion. |
| What standard governs withdrawal under §1018 when based on immigration ignorance? | AG: General collateral-consequences rules apply; defendant assumed the risk. | Patterson: Giron and §1018 allow withdrawal for mistake/ignorance where deportation consequences were not understood. | Court: §1018 allows withdrawal for mistake/ignorance; courts must consider all factors and defendant’s state of mind; Giron controls. |
| Does Padilla/ineffective assistance doctrine affect proceedings now? | AG: Not reached if §1018 denies relief; trial court done its duty by giving §1016.5. | Patterson: Counsel’s failure to advise re: clear deportation consequences may be ineffective assistance requiring relief. | Court: Declined to decide now; remanded so trial court can resolve §1018 first; if plea stands, habeas/Strickland–Padilla analysis proceeds (two-step test). |
| Was the trial court required to hold an evidentiary hearing on disputed facts (e.g., counsel’s advice, whether Patterson would have gone to trial)? | AG: No clear necessity absent stronger proof of prejudice. | Patterson: An evidentiary hearing is appropriate when facts hinge on trial counsel’s statements and credibility. | Court: Evidentiary hearing is ordinarily appropriate when factual disputes determine relief; trial court may consolidate §1018 motion and habeas matters and hold a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Giron), 11 Cal.3d 793 (1974) (ignorance that plea causes deportation can be good cause to withdraw plea under §1018)
- People v. Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (2001) (§1016.5 advisement does not preclude ineffective-assistance claims; defendants rely on counsel for case-specific advice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (when deportation consequences are clear, counsel must give accurate advice; unclear consequences require warning of possible risk)
- People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal.4th 183 (2000) (§1016.5 generic warning cannot be taken as notice of case-specific deportation risk)
- In re Brown, 9 Cal.3d 679 (1973) (standard of review: §1018 plea-withdrawal rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion)