THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUVENTINO ESPINOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
S269647
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2023
Fifth Appellate District F079209; Tulare County Superior Court VCF109133
S269647
Opinion of the Court by Liu, J.
Defendant Juventino Espinoza accepted a plea bargain in 2004 and served one year in jail. He argues that he first learned that the plea put him at risk of losing his permanent resident status and being deported in 2015, when he was detained by federal immigration authorities at the airport after a return flight to the United States. He then sought to vacate his conviction three separate times. He asserts counsel never
We granted review to consider what constitutes a sufficient showing of prejudicial error within the meaning of
I.
Espinoza migrated from Mexico to Northern California in 1981, when he was 13 years old. After arriving in Oroville, he
Espinoza and his wife created a family and a home together in California. The couple bought a home in Cutler, where they raised their children. Their first-born child, Juventino Espinoza, Jr., graduated from Sierra Nevada College with a bachelor‘s degree in psychology and has plans to join the army to serve as a behavioral therapist for struggling soldiers. Their eldest daughter, Marisol Espinoza, graduated from Milan Institute in Fresno as a beautician. Their second daughter attended La Sierra Military Academy. One of their sons, Juan Carlos Espinoza, died a few months after birth.
Espinoza is the primary caregiver to his parents, who suffer from Parkinson‘s disease and diabetes. Espinoza‘s parents live with him in Cutler and rely on him for assistance with their daily activities, including cooking, shopping, doing laundry, administering medication, and driving to medical appointments.
Espinoza is the main financial provider for his family. After several years as a farmworker, Espinoza relocated with his wife in 1991 to the Central Valley, where he worked for Schellenberg Farms in Reedley as a farm manager. Beginning
In 2003, Espinoza and several others were arrested following an investigation into suspected methamphetamine manufacturing. During the proceedings, it was undisputed that Espinoza had no prior criminal history. Eventually, Espinoza pleaded no contest to conspiracy (
At the time, Espinoza did not speak English; his attorney used a Spanish-speaking assistant to communicate with him before his plea. The assistant told Espinoza to plead no contest and “everything was going to be fine.” Espinoza never discussed the immigration consequences of the plea with his attorney, who did not advise him that pleading to these charges would put him in danger of losing his permanent resident status, being deported, and being barred from reentering the United States. It appears he relied on the reassurance of his attorney‘s assistant that, if he pleaded no contest, “everything was going to be fine.”
When Espinoza‘s plea was taken, the court provided him with the following advisement, pursuant to
Following Espinoza‘s plea, he was placed on five years of probation and ordered to serve 365 days in jail. According to Espinoza, he was not informed by his attorney that his plea agreement included jail time. Nevertheless, he served the jail term called for by the plea bargain. Upon release, Espinoza returned to being the family‘s main financial provider. He started his own lawn services and gardening business. He was well-known and involved in the community. He volunteered, went to church, and took part in numerous community organizations. His wife, five children, two sons-in-law, several grandchildren, and his parents and siblings continue to reside in the United States.
In 2015, more than a decade after his convictions and the service of his jail term, Espinoza left the country for a trip. When he returned to the United States, he was questioned by immigration officials, and they seized his permanent residence card. He asserts it was during that encounter that he became aware of the immigration consequences of his plea.
In 2017, Espinoza filed a nonstatutory motion to vacate his conviction. He filed additional motions under
II.
To prevail under
We apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences. (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 527.) ” ‘[U]nder independent review, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law.’ ” (Ibid.) When courts engage in independent review, they must give deference to the trial court‘s factual determinations if they are based on ” ’ “the credibility of
The record establishes that Espinoza did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea. Although the trial court provided a general advisement under
To determine whether there is a reasonable probability a defendant would have rejected a plea offer if he had understood
A defendant must provide ” ‘objective evidence’ ” to corroborate factual assertions. (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530.) Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant‘s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced. (See Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 530-531; Lee, supra, 582 U.S. at p. ___ [137 S.Ct. at p. 1961].)
Espinoza supported his
A.
Ties to the United States are an important factor in evaluating prejudicial error under
Objective evidence of a defendant‘s community ties includes facts provided by a defendant‘s declaration or declarations from family members, friends, colleagues,
In Vivar, we held that a defendant‘s substantial ties to the United States were an important factor in support of granting relief. Vivar “was brought to this country at age six . . . , and he attended schools, formed a family, and remained here for 40 years.” (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 530.) “At the time of his plea, he had two children, two grandchildren, and a wife, all of whom are citizens and all of whom resided in California. . . . Vivar had virtually no ties to Mexico, spoke Spanish ‘like an American,’ and found it ‘difficult to function in Mexican society because people treat [him] like an outsider.’ ” (Ibid.) We concluded that these facts provided objective evidence of “Vivar‘s concern about the immigration consequences of his plea options,” supporting a finding of prejudicial error. (Ibid.)
Similarly, the Courts of Appeal have found a defendant‘s strong community ties to provide compelling evidence in support of a finding of prejudicial error. (See People v. Lopez (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 698, 708 [prejudice established where the defendant moved to the United States at the age of 13, his entire family lived here, and he lacked meaningful ties to his country of origin]; Mejia, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 872 [compelling evidence of prejudice where the defendant lived in the United States since he was 14 years old, and his wife and child lived
The facts here are no less compelling. Espinoza has spent most of his life in the United States. He came to California when he was 13 years old. At the time of the plea, Espinoza had lived in California for 23 years. His wife and five children were United States citizens. His parents and siblings lived in the United States. He was the financial provider for his family. As Espinoza puts it, “[e]verything important in his life” at the time he entered his plea “was in the United States.” (Cf. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 209 [“a deported alien who cannot return ‘loses his job, his friends, his home, and maybe even his children’ “].) Espinoza‘s deep and long-standing ties are undisputed and weigh in favor of finding that he would have considered immigration consequences to be of paramount concern in deciding whether to accept a plea agreement.
After Espinoza accepted the plea and served jail time, he returned home to care for his family and community. He became the caregiver for his elderly parents who suffer from severe medical conditions. He ran his own business to provide for his family. He volunteered, went to church, and took part in numerous community organizations. These facts lend credence to Espinoza‘s assertion that his community ties were important to him at the time of his plea.
Espinoza‘s case is unlike instances where courts have found insufficient community ties to support a finding of prejudicial error. In People v. Bravo (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1077, for example, the Court of Appeal concluded that a
In sum, a defendant‘s deep and long-standing ties to the United States are among the totality of circumstances that can support an inference that immigration consequences were of paramount concern at the time of the defendant‘s guilty plea. Espinoza has demonstrated his ties to the United States, and those ties weigh in favor of a finding of prejudicial error.
B.
Another consideration is whether alternative, immigration-safe dispositions were available at the time of the defendant‘s plea. Factors relevant to this inquiry include the defendant‘s criminal record, the strength of the prosecution‘s case, the seriousness of the charges or whether the crimes involved sophistication, the district attorney‘s charging policies with respect to immigration consequences, and the existence of
Espinoza had no prior criminal history at the time of his plea. This fact is relevant because a defendant without an extensive criminal record may persuasively contend that the prosecutor might have been willing to offer an alternative plea without immigration consequences. (See Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 325 [“The record does not indicate that in 2005 Rodriguez extensively trafficked in methamphetamine or had such a serious criminal record that the prosecution would necessarily have been unwilling to enter an immigration-neutral plea.“].)
Additionally, Espinoza presented evidence from an immigration attorney that there were alternatives the prosecution could have offered that would not have resulted in mandatory deportation. Espinoza pleaded no contest to conspiracy (
The Court of Appeal said “[w]e need not pass upon the practical likelihood” that Espinoza could have bargained for an immigration-safe plea because “the focus is on whether Espinoza would have pursued such an alternative resolution notwithstanding its viability.” (People v. Espinoza (May 28, 2021, F079209) [nonpub. opn.] (Espinoza).) While it is true that
C.
In denying relief, the Court of Appeal observed that Espinoza did not express contemporaneous confusion, as Vivar did. (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 530-531.) But unlike Vivar, who was aware of the immigration consequences of his plea “at or near the time of his plea” (id. at p. 530), Espinoza has declared that he did not discover those consequences until more than a decade after his plea (ante, at p. 5). The Court of Appeal also questioned Espinoza‘s credibility because he did not submit evidence from his plea counsel, as Vivar did. (Vivar, at pp. 530-531.) But by the time Espinoza filed the motion at issue in this appeal, it had been 15 years since the plea. Both the district attorney and Espinoza‘s counsel represented to the court that they tried, without success, to contact the attorney who represented Espinoza at the time his plea was entered. As the Attorney General observes, “the robust evidence introduced in Vivar will not be available in most cases — especially where
Vivar did not suggest that the circumstances of that case constitute minimum requirements for establishing prejudicial error. A party seeking relief under
Having considered the totality of the circumstances here, we conclude that Espinoza has shown a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea and either gone to trial or sought a different, immigration-safe bargain if he had understood the consequences of the plea. Espinoza‘s deep and longstanding ties to the United States, along with those to his family and community, support the conclusion that immigration concerns would have been paramount to him at the time of his plea. (See Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 516-517.) In addition, Espinoza‘s lack of criminal history at the time of his plea and the immigration attorney‘s declaration identifying alternative
We also find it significant that the Attorney General agrees Espinoza is entitled to relief. Although we are not required to accept this concession, it suggests that any remand for further development of the record will serve only to delay the relief to which both parties now agree Espinoza is entitled. While a remand for reconsideration and the development of the record may be advisable in other cases, we are satisfied that the evidence here establishes a reasonable probability that Espinoza would have rejected the plea if he had understood its immigration consequences.
We reverse the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to remand the case to the trial court for entry of an order granting Espinoza‘s
LIU, J.
We Concur:
GUERRERO, C. J.
CORRIGAN, J.
KRUGER, J.
GROBAN, J.
JENKINS, J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.*
Name of Opinion People v. Espinoza
Procedural Posture (see XX below)
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted (published)
Review Granted (unpublished) XX NP opn. filed 5/28/21 – 5th Dist.
Rehearing Granted
Opinion No. S269647
Date Filed: January 26, 2023
Court: Superior
County: Tulare
Judge: Steven D. Barnes
Counsel:
Sanger Swysen & Dunkle, Stephen K. Dunkle and Sarah S. Sanger for Defendant and Appellant.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Kahn A. Scolnick, Daniel R. Adler, Emily R. Sauer, Patrick J. Fuster and Matt Aidan Getz for Alyssa Bell, Reuven Cohen, Ingrid V. Eagly, Gilbert Garcetti, Meline Mkrtichian, Ronald J. Nessim, Gabriel Pardo and Jennifer Resnik as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Stanford Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, Jayashri Srikantiah and Yulie Landan for Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Alameda County Public Defender‘s Office, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, Centro Legal de la Raza, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Dolores Street Community Services, Dreamer Fund, Immigrant Alliance for Justice and Equity, Immigrant Legal Defense, Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay,
Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Michael J. Mongan, State Solicitor General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Samuel P. Siegel, Deputy State Solicitor General, Darren K. Indermill, David Andrew Eldredge and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, and Kimberly M. Castle, Associate Deputy State Solicitor General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Stephen K. Dunkle
Sanger Swysen & Dunkle
222 East Carrillo Street, Suite 300
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 962-4887
Samuel P. Siegel
Deputy State Solicitor General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 510-3917