Source: https://caselaw.lexroll.com/2018/01/24/people-v-perez-no-d072121-cal-app-1-23-2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:23:06+00:00

Document:
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.
Nina Bonyak, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In August 2005, Modesto Perez pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §11378). Over six months later, Perez was deported to Mexico based on his conviction.
On January 1, 2017, Penal Code section 1473.7 became effective. That statute allows a person no longer imprisoned or restrained to move to vacate a conviction or sentence for one of two reasons, including that “[t]he conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) Perez subsequently filed a motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7. The superior court denied Perez’s motion.
Perez appeals, contending the court erred in denying his motion. The People counter, arguing the statute does not apply retroactively and, even if it did, Perez’s motion was untimely and the record shows that he had sufficient knowledge of the immigration consequences of his plea.
We determine that section 1473.7 does apply to Perez. However, we conclude Perez has not shown he is entitled to relief under that statute. As such, we affirm the order.
Before deciding to plead guilty, Perez asked the court about the consequences of going to trial and when trial would occur. After the court answered Perez’s questions, Perez conferred with his attorney for a few minutes before he decided to plead guilty.
Upon Perez indicating that he wished to plead guilty, the court questioned Perez about the plea form Perez submitted. The court asked Perez whether he reviewed the form very carefully with his attorney and the court interpreter. Perez responded in the affirmative. The court specifically asked Perez if the interpreter explained “everything to [him] on these forms line by line?” The court then inquired whether Perez understood everything he was told about the form and if his answers on the form were correct. Again, Perez responded in the affirmative.
After the court explained to Perez that he would be waiving certain constitutional rights, Perez pled guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine for sale.
Perez’s plea form appears in the record. As pertinent here, the form states, “I understand that if I am not a U.S. Citizen, this plea of Guilty/No Contest may result in my removal/deportation, exclusion from admission to the U.S. and denial of naturalization. Additionally, if this plea is to an ‘Aggravated Felony’ listed on the back of this form, then I will be deported, excluded from admission to the U.S., and denied naturalization.” Perez’s initials appear in the box next to that statement.
On the back of the plea form, felony possession of any controlled substance is listed as an aggravated felony.
On February 21, 2017, Perez filed a motion to vacate conviction based on section 1473.7. In his motion, Perez argued that (1) his counsel violated the duty to investigate and accurately advise him about the specific immigration consequences of a plea; (2) his counsel failed to defend against immigration consequences of a plea by attempting to plea bargain for an immigration safe alternative disposition; and (3) Perez failed to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of the conviction.
Among other material offered in support of his motion, Perez submitted multiple self-declarations. In one such declaration, Perez indicated that he did not understand what was happening at the hearing at which he pled guilty. He claimed that his attorney did not explain other options or the immigration consequences if he pled guilty. Perez further declared that he only pled guilty because he was not aware of and did not understand all the consequences of his guilty plea. Moreover, he asserted that, despite the presence of a Spanish interpreter, he still did not “completely comprehend what [he] was initialing because, [he] only ha[s] an elementary education and [was] not familiar with technical legal terms in Spanish and [he] did not have meaningful understanding of the documents.” Finally, Perez insisted that he would not have signed the plea form had he known he would have been deported, but instead, he would have been willing to serve a longer prison sentence to avoid deportation.
The People opposed Perez’s motion, contending the motion was untimely and Perez understood and was advised of the immigration consequences of his plea.
As a threshold matter, the People argue that section 1473.7 is not retroactive; thus, it cannot apply to Perez, who pled guilty and was deported before section 1473.7 became effective. To this end, the People compare section 1473.7 with sections 1016.5, 1203.4a, and 1473.6. They contend that those sections indicate that the Legislature understands how to explicitly state when a statute applies retroactively. Because section 1473.7 does not contain analogous language, the People maintain the Legislature did not intend it to apply retroactively. We find the specific language of sections 1016.5, 1203.4a, and 1473.6 not helpful to our analysis here.
Section 1016.5, subdivision (c) specifically states that the statute is not retroactive: “With respect to pleas accepted prior to January 1, 1978, it is not the intent of the Legislature that a court’s failure to provide the advisement required by subdivision (a) of Section 1016.5 should require the vacation of judgment and withdrawal of the plea or constitute grounds for finding a prior conviction invalid. Nothing in this section, however, shall be deemed to inhibit a court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, from vacating a judgment and permitting a defendant to withdraw a plea.” Section 1203.4a, which requires a trial court to dismiss misdemeanor or infraction convictions in certain circumstances (People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 741), specifically states it applies to convictions occurring before and after the statute’s effective date, (§ 1203.4a, subd. (d)). And section 1473.6 allows a defendant to move to vacate a judgment based on newly discovered evidence of fraud, false testimony, or misconduct by a government official in connection with the underlying case. (§ 1473.6, subd. (a)(1), (2), & (3).) That statute includes a time limit by which a defendant can seek relief under the statute. (See § 1473.6, subd. (d) [within one year of the date the new evidence was or reasonably could have been discovered or the effective date of the statute, whichever is later].) These statutes do not indicate that the Legislature uses a specific type of language when decreeing a statute is retroactive. Indeed, the statutes underscore the opposite conclusion. The Legislature uses no uniform language, but instead, offers clarification as it sees fit.
Unlike section 1016.5, section 1473.7 does not contain an explicit subdivision stating the statute is not to be applied retroactively. (§ 1016.5, subd. (c).) That said, there is no specific indication in section 1473.7 that it is to be applied retroactively like subdivision (d) of section 1203.4a. Instead, section 1473.7 is somewhat like section 1473.6 in that both statutes contain a timeliness provision. (Compare § 1473.7, subd. (b)(1) & (2), (c) with 1473.6, subd. (d)(1) & (2).) Thus, on a plain reading of the statute, it appears a moving party can seek relief under it if he or she satisfies the statute’s three requirements.
The People argue that these three requirements underscore that section 1473.7 is to be applied prospectively only. To support their position, the People offer a hypothetical involving a defendant who pled guilty after the effective date of the statute, was placed on probation, and six months later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials take him into custody and begin deportation based on the plea and conviction. Under this scenario, the People assert the hypothetical defendant can seek relief under section 1473.7. Further, the People argue that their hypothetical illustrates that the application of section 1473.7 only on a prospective basis is consistent with the statute’s purpose.
We agree with the People that they have presented a situation under which a defendant can seek relief pursuant to section 1473.7. Nevertheless, we do not read the statute as limiting relief as to defendants who pled guilty only after the statute’s effective date. For example, a defendant could have pled guilty, in December 2015, to a felony that would subject him to deportation (e.g., possession of methamphetamine for sale). The court then sentenced that defendant to jail for 364 days with probation upon release. The defendant served his jail time, and a few weeks after his release, ICE picked him up and began deportation proceedings on February 13, 2017. Two weeks later, the defendant filed a motion under section 1473.7 to vacate his conviction, claiming that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Under this hypothetical, we see no impediment in section 1473.7 that would prohibit the defendant from seeking relief under that statute. The defendant is no longer in state custody. (See § 1473.7, subd. (a).) The defendant challenged his guilty plea for one of the two enumerated reasons in the statute. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) And the defendant filed his motion for relief with reasonable diligence after he received notice that his conviction is the basis for deportation proceedings. (§ 1473.7, subd. (b)(1).) Simply based on the plain words of the statute, it is clear that there is no requirement that the defendant had pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony after section 1473.7’s effective date. Alternatively stated, the statute’s own language indicates that it can be applied retroactively if the moving party satisfies the requirements of the statute.
Our interpretation of section 1473.7 is buttressed by the explanation of its purpose.
“Under existing law, although persons not presently restrained of liberty may seek certain types of relief from the disabilities of a conviction, the writ of habeas corpus is generally not available to them. Existing law creates an explicit right for a person no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment based on newly obtained evidence of fraud or misconduct by a government official, as specified.
As the People emphasize, section 1473.7 allows a defendant, who is no longer in custody, to challenge his or her conviction based on a mistake of law regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea or ineffective assistance of counsel in properly advising the defendant of the consequences when the defendant learns of the error postcustody. There is no requirement in the statute that the defendant had to have pled guilty after the effective date of the statute.
With this background in mind, we cannot say that section 1473.7 does not apply to Perez. Nor do we see anything in the statute that warrants our proclamation that section 1473.7 can only be applied prospectively. Instead, a court needs to evaluate whether a moving party satisfies the required elements to bring a motion under the statute. Thus, we turn to the superior court’s order denying Perez’s motion.
The superior court found that Perez’s motion under section 1473.7 was untimely. There is not much in the record to explain the court’s reasoning for this conclusion. Although given the opportunity to do so, Perez’s counsel did not offer any argument at the hearing on Perez’s motion. Instead, she submitted on the tentative, which was against her client. In the minute order denying Perez’s motion, the court decreed that the motion was untimely, noting that (1) Perez was at least aware of the immigration consequences of his plea when he was deported in 2006 and (2) Perez took no action until early 2017 to challenge those consequences. Absent in the court’s order is any reference to the timeliness requirement found in section 1473.7, subdivision (b)(1) and (2). Thus, it appears the court’s untimeliness analysis was not based on the statute, but instead, on more equitable considerations. That said, we struggle to agree with the superior court that Perez’s motion was untimely when the rights giving rise to the motion did not take effect until January 1, 2017 and the court only appeared to consider Perez’s actions before that date.
On the record before us, even if we assume Perez’s motion was timely, we nonetheless conclude that Perez did not satisfy his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief under section 1473.7. Simply put, the record belies Perez’s contention that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea. Although Perez did not speak English, a Spanish interpreter was provided for him. That interpreter stated that she translated the entire plea form for Perez. The plea form translated for Perez, initialed and signed on Perez’s behalf, indicated that his guilty plea could result in his deportation. It also indicated that if he pled guilty to certain enumerated crimes (such as felony possession of any controlled substance), he would be deported. In other words, the plea form, translated by an interpreter for Perez and explained to Perez by his attorney and the interpreter, informed him that he would be deported if he pled guilty. Further, and more importantly, the superior court explicitly informed Perez that if he were to plead guilty, he would be deported from the United States. The court was unequivocal about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, reiterating that the federal government would not allow Perez to become a citizen of the United States. This was not a situation where the court informed a defendant that there was “a high likelihood” that he would face deportation. (United States v. Rodriguez-Vega (9th Cir. 2015) 797 F.3d 781, 791.) The court below left no doubt. Perez would be deported if he pled guilty. This is the only evidence in the record that is contemporaneous to Perez’s guilty plea.
Moreover, Perez does not address this unambiguous record on appeal. Instead, he offers his own declaration, executed more than 11 years after he pled guilty, wherein he claims his attorney never explained the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and he did not understand he would be deported if he pled guilty. We find nothing in the transcript of his plea hearing or Perez’s plea form that offers a scintilla of support for Perez’s position here. To the contrary, the record could not have been more clear. The court noted that Perez was emotional and asked if it was because he would be deported. The attorney, in the presence of Perez and the interpreter, stated that Perez was upset about being deported and indicated that he discussed the issue with Perez. The court asked Perez if he wanted to continue the hearing. Before Perez pled guilty, the court told Perez he would be deported if he pled guilty. And Perez’s plea form, which he admitted was explained to him by the interpreter and his attorney, reiterated that he would be deported if he pled guilty. Considering this record, we struggle to contemplate how Perez could have been more indisputably informed of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
 The declarations were English translations of Perez’s oral statements, which he made in Spanish.
 Perez does not address retroactivity whatsoever.
 The People argue the court’s conclusion that Perez’s motion was untimely “perhaps” underscored that the court believed that section 1473.7 could not apply retroactively. We find no support for this assertion in the record.
 A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has two components—deficient performance and prejudice resulting from it. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687.) To the extent that Perez claims his attorney was constitutionally ineffective in failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, we cannot resolve that issue on the record before us. Perez’s counsel represented to the court in the presence of Perez that he had informed Perez of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and that Perez was upset at that hearing for that reason as well as others. In addition, Perez’s counsel signed the plea agreement, indicating that he had discussed the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Further, Perez told the court that he had very carefully reviewed his plea form with his attorney and interpreter.

References: §11378
 v. 
 § 1473
 § 1473
 § 1473
 v. 
 v.