People v. Sosa CA4/2
E073591
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 14, 2021Background
- Defendant Luis A. Sosa, a legal permanent resident from El Salvador, was arrested in 1992 for possession for sale of cocaine and heroin and pleaded guilty to one count as part of a negotiated plea (other count dismissed); he received probation and 90 days in jail.
- At arraignment and on the written plea form (initialed with a Spanish interpreter), defendant was advised that a conviction "may lead to deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization."
- In 2013 defendant was placed in federal removal proceedings; in 2019 he moved under Penal Code §1473.7 to vacate his plea, asserting he did not meaningfully understand the plea's immigration consequences and that trial counsel failed to advise him.
- At the §1473.7 hearing defendant testified his counsel never advised him of immigration consequences and that he would have rejected the plea or sought a different deal; the trial court found aspects of his testimony not credible and emphasized lack of corroborating contemporaneous evidence.
- The trial court denied relief for failure to prove prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea); the Court of Appeal applied independent review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sosa established prejudicial error under §1473.7 (i.e., a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea if properly advised of immigration consequences) | People: record shows defendant was advised (plea form, arraignment), testimony lacked corroboration, defendant had weak ties to U.S. and strong incentive to accept probation rather than risk 4–5 years in prison | Sosa: counsel failed to meaningfully advise him of adverse immigration consequences; he would have rejected the plea or accepted a different, immigration‑neutral disposition or longer custody to avoid deportation | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding no prejudice; defendant failed to prove he would have rejected the plea if properly advised |
| Standard and scope of §1473.7 relief (must defendant prove ineffective assistance of counsel?) | People argued defendant’s declaration insufficient and raised constitutional issues | Sosa sought relief under §1473.7 as amended, which allows vacatur for prejudicial error and need not include an IAC finding | Court applied Vivar and the amended §1473.7: IAC need not be proved, but defendant still must show prejudicial error by preponderance; here prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (2021) (clarifies independent appellate review of prejudice under §1473.7 and factors for assessing whether defendant would have rejected a plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective assistance standard referenced in §1473.7 jurisprudence)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (explains that defendants may reject plea that leads to deportation even if it reduces prison time)
- People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (2013) (discusses need for a declaration stating defendant would not have pleaded guilty absent correct advice and factors for credibility)
- People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (2019) (treats §1473.7 relief and relationship to IAC standards)
- People v. Camacho, 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (2019) (analyzes §1473.7 prejudice inquiry and corroboration requirements)