People v. Shokur
205 Cal. App. 4th 1398
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Yussuf Shokur pled guilty in 2005 to possession of marijuana for sale and was advised of immigration consequences on the plea form and colloquy.
- He completed probation, had the guilty plea withdrawn, pled not guilty, and the case was dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4.
- Years later he pled guilty to two counts of robbery in another Orange County case.
- In 2011 he sought a nonstatutory motion to vacate his conviction, alleging his counsel failed to explain immigration consequences.
- The superior court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction under Kim and other authorities, and the appellate court affirmed, rejecting relief under Padilla-based reasoning and nonstatutory safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonstatutory motion to vacate is available for an ineffective-assistance claim post-judgment | Shokur argues Padilla requires a nonstatutory route. | Shokur contends a nonstatutory remedy is appropriate when other options are unavailable. | No; nonstatutory motions are not a universal safety net; jurisdiction absent and no prima facie showing. |
| Does Padilla create a remedy when other postconviction avenues exist or have expired? | Padilla mandates relief for misadvice about immigration consequences. | Padilla does not mandate a postjudgment nonstatutory remedy where statutory paths exist or have lapsed. | Padilla does not require a nonstatutory postjudgment safety net. |
| Did California authorities properly limit jurisdiction to hear belated ineffective-assistance claims | Kim prevents relief via coram nobis for immigration advisement issues. | Kim forecloses nonstatutory motions to vacate where statutory remedies exist. | Superior court lacked jurisdiction; even if had, relief would still be denied. |
| Was there prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel based on immigration advice? | Counsel failed to inform about deportation consequences. | Defendant understood deportation risk from the court advisement and pled guilty. | No prima facie showing; defendant understood deportation risk and had no punitive reliance on counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009) (noncitizen may not seek coram nobis for immigration-misadvice; remedies via 1016.5/1018 available)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment applies to counsel's immigration-advising; not a blanket postconviction remedy)
- In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (Cal. 2001) (ineffective-assistance claims available via habeas or 1018; coram nobis not universal)
- Murgia v. Municipal Court, 15 Cal.3d 286 (Cal. 1975) (limits of trial court jurisdiction post-judgment; not a universal shortcut)
- People v. Fosselman, 33 Cal.3d 572 (Cal. 1983) (jurisdiction to raise IAC in pending case; not a basis to indefinitely revisit final judgments)