49 Cal.App.5th 1061
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1991 Ruiz pleaded no contest to possession for sale of cocaine base; her written plea form stated the conviction "may have" immigration consequences.
- Ruiz later faced removal proceedings and sought to vacate the 1991 conviction as causing permanent ineligibility for lawful permanent residence/naturalization.
- In 2016–2017 Ruiz moved to vacate under Penal Code §1016.5 (and cited §1473.7); the trial court denied the 2017 motion because the plea form warned that the conviction "may have" immigration consequences.
- California amended Penal Code §1473.7 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) to broaden relief: it removed the Strickland ineffective-assistance standard, expanded filing periods, and required only a showing that counsel’s errors prejudiced the defendant’s ability to understand or accept immigration consequences.
- Ruiz filed a new §1473.7 motion in 2019 asserting her counsel failed to advise her of mandatory immigration consequences; the trial court denied it as a barred reconsideration of the 2017 motion.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the 2019 motion challenges different legal issues under the amended §1473.7 and must be heard on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of 1991 immigration advisement | The plea form’s statement that the conviction "may have" immigration consequences was sufficient. | The "may have" language was inadequate for serious controlled-substance convictions because consequences were mandatory. | The "may have" advisement was inadequate; defendants must be warned when consequences are mandatory (per Patterson). |
| Effect of 2019 amendments to §1473.7 | The prior 2017 denial forecloses relitigation; earlier law controlled. | The 2019 amendments changed standards and time limits, eliminating Strickland and creating a new, broader remedy. | The 2019 amendments created a substantively different basis for relief and lowered the burden; they apply to motions filed after the amendments took effect. |
| Whether the 2019 motion is barred by the 2017 motion (collateral estoppel/time bars) | Ruiz already litigated immigration-advisement issues in 2017; she shouldn’t get a "second bite." | The 2017 motion was grounded on §1016.5 standards and did not present the amended §1473.7 claims; issues are not identical. | The 2019 motion is not barred: different legal issues and an intervening change in law permit relitigation; remand for a hearing. |
| Trial court jurisdiction / entitlement to hearing | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider prior denial; motion untimely. | §1473.7 requires hearings and enlarged time periods; Ruiz is entitled to a merits hearing under the new statute. | The trial court erred; §1473.7 entitles Ruiz to a hearing on her motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Patterson, 2 Cal.5th 885 (Cal. 2017) (advisement that a conviction "may" have consequences is inadequate when consequences are mandatory)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen client of deportation risk from plea in certain circumstances)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule that may not apply retroactively in federal collateral review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (discussing §1473.7 practice and impact of eliminating Strickland requirement)
- People v. Espinoza, 27 Cal.App.5th 908 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (advisement standards for immigration consequences)