People v. Tapia, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572

Background

In 2012 Tapia (a Mexican lawful permanent resident) pled no contest to conspiracy (Pen. Code §182(a)(1)) and cultivation (H&S §11358) after police found large marijuana grow/processing operations and firearms; total recovered ~760 lbs and 143 plants.
At plea hearing Tapia signed a Spanish-language Declaration Regarding Guilty Plea that warned a noncitizen plea "may" result in deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization; the court explicitly told Tapia the plea "will result" in deportation and bar reentry and citizenship, and Tapia said he understood.
Defense counsel Collins stated on the record he would confirm immigration effects, later declared he told Tapia the plea exposed him to deportation, loss of permanent residency, and reentry/preclusion from citizenship, and negotiated dismissal of a sale charge plus felony probation.
Tapia later left the U.S. while on probation, was detained upon return, received notices to appear in immigration court, and in 2017 filed a Penal Code §1473.7 motion to withdraw his plea arguing ineffective assistance for failing to advise precise immigration consequences and failing to negotiate an immigration-safe plea.
The trial court denied the §1473.7 motion, finding counsel competent and that Tapia was adequately advised; the appellate court affirmed, applying de novo review to Padilla-based ineffective-assistance claim and finding substantial evidence counsel and the court advised Tapia of the immigration consequences and no proof an immigration-safe plea was feasible.

Issues

Issue	Tapia's Argument	People/Collins' Argument	Held
Whether Tapia's plea is voidable under §1473.7(a)(1) because counsel failed to advise of the actual immigration consequences	Collins failed to advise of the precise immigration consequences (including aggravated-felony classification) so Tapia did not knowingly accept consequences	Trial court and Collins advised Tapia of deportation, loss of residency, and reentry bar; court advisement expressly stated plea "will" result in deportation and Tapia said he understood	Denied — substantial evidence counsel and court advised Tapia; no deficient performance or prejudice under Padilla
Whether counsel was ineffective for not negotiating an "immigration-safe" plea	Collins should have obtained a plea without adverse immigration consequences	No evidence such a plea was feasible; Collins negotiated the best resolution given facts and prosecution’s position	Denied — speculative claim; no evidentiary support that a safer plea was possible
Whether Tapia’s later detention and removal proceedings tolled or invalidated his plea timing under §1473.7	Tapia filed with reasonable diligence after immigration proceedings began	People did not contest timeliness here	Court considered motion timely; substantive denial on merits
Whether Tapia’s later factual claims of noninvolvement undermine the plea’s factual basis	Tapia and brother declared he wasn’t involved in the operation	Record contains admissions, property control, stipulation to factual basis, and probation report tying Tapia to operation	Denied — plea had adequate factual basis; collateral claims contradicted by record

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (defense counsel must advise about deportation risks of a plea)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (court examines prejudice where erroneous advice affects plea choices)
People v. Ogunmowo, 23 Cal.App.5th 67 (de novo review for mixed questions implicating Padilla ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Olvera, 24 Cal.App.5th 1112 (advisement that plea "will" have deportation consequences can suffice under §1016.5/§1473.7)
People v. Mickel, 2 Cal.5th 181 (movant bears burden to prove ineffective assistance and prejudice under §1473.7)
United States v. Reveles-Espinoza, 522 F.3d 1044 (construing H&S §11358 as an aggravated felony under federal law)
People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (speculation is not evidence for proving an alternative plea was available)