233 Cal. App. 4th 736
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Perez, a lifelong U.S. resident born in Mexico, pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school; court granted three years probation and 180 days jail (157 days credit).
- After plea, an immigration hold led to a federal order of removal; Perez moved within six months under Penal Code §1018 to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Motion supported by declarations from Perez, his sister, and an immigration attorney asserting defense counsel affirmatively misadvised Perez that a sub‑one‑year sentence would avoid deportation.
- The district attorney did not file an opposition; the trial court summarily denied the withdrawal motion without stating reasons.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the record one‑sided and the summary denial unsupported by stated reasons, given Padilla‑type ineffective assistance allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez may withdraw his guilty plea under Penal Code §1018 for counsel’s alleged misadvice about deportation | The prosecutor argued the declarations were insufficient to prove Perez’s allegations | Perez argued counsel affirmatively misadvised him that a sentence under one year would prevent deportation, contrary to law, so plea was induced by mistake/ignorance | Court reversed and remanded: summary denial unsupported because evidence was one‑sided and court gave no reason; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether counsel’s alleged immigration advice constitutes ineffective assistance supporting plea withdrawal | Implicitly that the record did not establish counsel’s misadvice | Perez relied on Padilla and declarations showing counsel told him he would not be deported because sentence was under one year | Court recognized Padilla principle and that alleged advice (if given) was legally incorrect; the trial court abused discretion by denying without explanation when evidence was uncontradicted |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise about deportation risk; ineffective assistance can invalidate plea)
- United States v. Valdavinos‑Torres, 704 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.) (possession of methamphetamine for sale can qualify as an aggravated felony for immigration removal)
- People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 (1991) (standard for establishing good cause to withdraw a plea)
- People v. Zapien, 4 Cal.4th 929 (1993) (appellate review may affirm on any correct legal theory; credibility findings can support summary rulings)
- Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn., 92 Cal.App.4th 156 (2001) (exercise of discretion must have reasonable basis; summary denials unsupported by the record reversible)