People v. Perez, 19 Cal. App. 5th 818

Background

In August 2005 Perez pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale; the court and plea form (with Spanish interpreter) explicitly advised his plea could result in deportation and related immigration consequences.
Perez was deported to Mexico about six months after his conviction.
On Jan. 1, 2017 Penal Code § 1473.7 took effect, permitting persons no longer imprisoned to move to vacate convictions where a prejudicial error impaired meaningful understanding of immigration consequences of a plea.
Perez filed a § 1473.7 motion in Feb. 2017 arguing he lacked meaningful understanding of immigration consequences and that counsel failed to secure an immigration‑safe disposition.
The superior court denied the motion as untimely (not referencing the statute’s specific timeliness triggers). Perez appealed.
The Court of Appeal held § 1473.7 may apply retroactively but affirmed denial because the record (court colloquy, plea form, interpreter and counsel statements) showed Perez was clearly informed of deportation and he offered only an 11‑year‑later declaration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Perez)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether § 1473.7 applies to convictions and pleas entered before the statute’s effective date	§ 1473.7 applies and Perez may seek relief though his plea and deportation predated the statute	§ 1473.7 is not retroactive and therefore does not apply to Perez	Court: § 1473.7 can apply retroactively where the statute’s elements are met; no textual bar to retroactive relief
Whether Perez’s § 1473.7 motion was untimely	Perez filed with reasonable diligence after statute took effect and after receiving immigration notice	People: motion is untimely because Perez knew of deportation years earlier and waited until 2017	Court: superior court’s untimeliness rationale was not tied to § 1473.7 timeliness rules; on appeal Perez’s Feb. 2017 motion (weeks after statute took effect) was not untimely under § 1473.7
Whether Perez proved he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea	Perez asserted he lacked comprehension despite interpreter, had limited education, and would have chosen a different disposition	People: contemporaneous record (court admonition, plea form, counsel and interpreter statements) shows Perez was informed and understood	Court: Held Perez failed to meet preponderance burden; record conclusively shows he was told he would be deported and had reviewed/initialed the plea form
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an immigration‑safe plea	Perez contended counsel did not attempt or could have obtained an immigration‑safe disposition	People: no evidence prosecution would have agreed and counsel declared he discussed immigration consequences	Court: No basis to presume ineffective assistance; appellant bears burden and record does not support deficient performance or prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance two‑part test)
People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (appellate review may be affirmed if correct on any ground)
People v. Stephenson, 10 Cal.3d 652 (appellant must show ineffectiveness by facts, not speculation)
United States v. Rodriguez‑Vega, 797 F.3d 781 (discusses likelihood language vs. unequivocal advisals re: immigration consequences)