Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-kim-33072
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:49:10+00:00

Document:
country as a legal resident for more than two decades but never became a citizen.
this country by federal authorities. As we explain in a companion case (People v.
trial court’s decision to issue the writ, we affirm.
and his brother to this country on a family visa when defendant was six years old.
his father is a lawful permanent resident.
including a specific prohibition against possessing weapons or ammunition.
Defendant turned 18 years old in December of that year.
the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).
days in jail, which was suspended until the end of the school year.
opened. The trio then purchased other items and attempted to leave the store.
valued in the aggregate at less than $100.
prosecuted by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (See U.S. v.
for discretionary cancellation of removal (id., § 1229b(a)(3)).
was eventually released from INS custody on August 20, 1999.
defendant’s two convictions involving moral turpitude (8 U.S.C.
is now final and its merits are not before us.
pages 71-160 to 71-160.1 and footnote 435 (rel. 115 12/06).
Despite this setback, defendant continued his efforts to avoid deportation.
second degree burglary stemming from his thefts at the UCSB campus bookstore.
questions of law’ raised by any alien in a petition for review); see also Puri v.
brings us to the present proceeding.
The Court of Appeal reversed, and we granted review.
in this case the availability of the writ in criminal cases only.
fault or negligence of the party, was not presented to the court.’ ” (People v.
“The writ of [error] coram nobis is granted only when three requirements are met.
[Citations.] (2) Petitioner must also show that the ‘newly discovered evidence . . .
because of ignorance or mistake as to the legal effect of those facts.” (People v.
been served with summons and who had no notice of the proceeding [citations].
the West Coast. (Hirabayashi v. United States (W.D.Wn. 1986) 627 F.Supp.
degree murder meant he would serve no more than 15 years in prison (People v.
civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) (People v.
Cal.App.4th at p. 1352; People v. Ibanez, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 544; cf.
for defendant to plead to a nondeportable offense.
entitlement to the writ fails at the threshold for three distinct procedural reasons.
prerequisite to the availability of relief by motion for coram nobis” (People v.
reasonable avenue of relief for those whose rights have allegedly been violated.
truth of the charges against the defendant and the appropriate punishment.
nowhere does he allege when he learned these facts.
declare when he learned of these facts.
on his part.” (People v. Reid, supra, 195 Cal. at p. 260; see also Mendez v.
The federal courts apparently follow a different rule. (United States v.
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court]; U.S. v. Kwan (9th Cir.
decisions are linked to the purpose of the federal habeas corpus statute (28 U.S.C.
state custody, that is, in prison or on parole.
remedies) precludes his entitlement to relief, but his arguments are unpersuasive.
INS intended to deport him based on his conviction for the Costco crimes.
sought to vacate his plea in the Costco crimes.
(Zamudio), supra, 23 Cal.4th at page 200, footnote 8.
diligence. But the prosecutor’s equivocal statements at that 2003 hearing (“No.
presented would have prevented the rendition of the judgment.’ ” (People v.
alternative plea to a nondeportable offense.
ignorance or mistake as to the legal effect of those facts”]; see also People v.
In arguing to the contrary, defendant relies heavily on People v.
unknown fact would have prevented rendition of the judgment. (People v.
habeas corpus].) Nor does defendant in any event assert he was misadvised.
Defendant and amici curiae place much reliance on United States v.
of which the petitioner allegedly was deprived was fundamental in nature.
“Although the term has been served, the results of the conviction may persist.
as the defendant’s being under age or having died before the verdict.” (Carlisle v.
coram nobis] would be necessary or appropriate’ ” (Carlisle, at p. 429).
guilty plea or set aside a verdict of guilty and have the matter dismissed.
(§ 1203.4.) One convicted of a crime can also seek a pardon from the Governor.
rights or otherwise correct legal errors infecting their judgments.
longer in custody, move to vacate the judgment. (§ 1473.6; see People v.
nonexclusive list of grounds for authorizing issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
materials are superfluous. Accordingly, we deny the requests for judicial notice.
Finally, defendant argues he is entitled to relief via a writ of habeas corpus.
for state habeas corpus purposes. Accordingly, we reject this claim as well.
nobis, we affirm the judgment.
R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Eric D.
Share, Laurence K. Sullivan and Amy Haddix, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Joel Franklin and Joel Franklin for Defendant and Respondent.
Ralph S. Greer as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Guild as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
People v. Villa, 45 Cal.4th 1063 (2009).
People v. Mooney, 178 Cal. 525 (1918).
People v. Shipman, 62 Cal.2d 226 (1965).
Immigrant Crime & Justice, P.C.
Law Enforcement Alliance of America, (non party) by counsel, C. D. Michel.
Werdegar, J., was absent and did not participate. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.
to and including November 26, 2007 to file Respondent Kim's Opening Brief on the Merits.
On application of Respondent Kim and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the Respondent's Opening Brief on the Merits is extended to and including November 26, 2007. No further extensions of time will be granted.
On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file Respondent's Answer Brief on the Merits is extended to and including January 28, 2008.
to and including February 27, 2008 to file Appellant's Answer Brief on the Merits.
On application of Respondent Kim and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the Anwer Brief on the Merits is extended to and including February 27, 2008.
The order filed January 24, 2008 is hereby amended to read as follows: "On application of Appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the Answer Brief on the Merits is extended to and including February 27, 2008."
The application of appellant (The People) for permission to file the answer brief on the merits containing 23,192 words that exceeds the 14,000 word limit prescribed by California Rules of Court rule 8.520(c) by 9, 192 words is hereby granted.
The application of Respondent Kim and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including April 22, 2008.
On application of Respondent Kim and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the objections to appellant's request for judicial notice is extended to and including April 22, 2008.
On application of Respondent Kim and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file Respondent's Reply Brief on the Merits is extended to and including May 7, 2008.
The application of repondent, Hyung Joon Kim, for permission to file the reply brief on the merits in excess of the word limitation is hereby granted.
The application of Ralph S. Greer, Attorney at Law, for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Ralph S. Greer, Attorney at Law, in support of respondent by Ralph s. Greer, Esq.
On application of amicus curiae the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby extended to and including July 13, 2008.
On application of amicus curiae the National Immigration Project and the National Lawyers Guild and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby extended to and including July 13, 2008.
On application of amici curiae Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Asian Law Caucus, Defending Immigrants Partnership, Immigration Law Clinic of the School of Law at University of California Davis, South Asian Network, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Northern California, and Imperial and San Diego Counties, and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its amici curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby extended to and including July 13, 2008.
15-day extension request of amici Calif. Rifle & Pistol Assoc., & The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, to file amicus brief and application.
On application of Amici California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. and Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the amici curiae brief is extended to and including July 29 2008.
of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice to and including July 28, 2008 by Denise M. Gragg, Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee.
National Immigration Project of National Lawyers Guild in support of Respondent Kim by Karl W. Krooth, Immigrant Crime and Justice, P.C., counsel CRC 8.25 (b) Received Notice of Change of Address for counsel, also noted on the amicus application and brief..
On application of amicus curiae California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent Kim is hereby extended to and including July 28, 2008. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party twenty days after the filing of the brief.
The application of Northern California Innocence Project for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent Kim is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
The application of Immigrant Rights Organizations (Immigrant Legal Resources Center, UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, South Asian Network Asian Law Caucus) and the San Francisco Public Defender, for permission to file an amici curiae brief in support of Respondent Kim is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
The application of National Immigration Project of National Lawyers Guild for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent Kim is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
to and inlcuding September 10, 2008, to file Appellant's (People) Consolidated Answer to Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Respondent by Amy Haddix, Deputy Attorney General - S.F.
On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's consolidated answer to the amicus curiae briefs in support of respondent is extended to and including September 10, 2008.
The United States Congress has plenary power over matters of immigration and naturalization (U.S. Const. art. I, Section 8, cl. 4), including deportation, and judicial power regarding immigration and naturalization is extremely limited (Fiallo v. Bell (1977) 430 U.S. 787, 792. "In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." (Mathews v. Diaz (1976) 426 U.S. 67, 79-80.) Because of federal immigration laws concerning the commission of certain types of crimes by resident aliens, defendant is facing the possibly permanent separation from his family, his friends, and the only home he has ever known. But despite this harsh consequence flowing from his 1997 conviction for petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (following his conviction for the tool shed burglary in 1996), we conclude that at this late date, he is procedurally barred from obtaining relief by way of coram nobis because his presentation of claims is untimely, he had other legal remedies, and he presented his legal claims piecemeal. We also conclude that defendant has not stated a case for relief on the merits because he alleges no mistake of fact which, had it been known at the time of his plea, would have prevented rendition of the judgment. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief. Because the Court of Appeal below correctly reversed the trial court's decision to issue a writ of error coram nobis, we affirm the judgment. Opinion by Werdegar, J. -- joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, Corrigan, JJ.
Acknowledgment of receipt of remittitur from Sixth District Appellate Court.
Hyung Joon Kim (Kim) was born in South Korea and entered the United States legally with his parents when he was a young child. He lived in the United States for more than two decades but never became a citizen.
While still a juvenile, Kim was arrested on several occasions. In 1995, the juvenile court placed him on probation on certain conditions, including a specific prohibition against possessing weapons or ammunition. In 1996, Kim (now 18 years old) was arrested and convicted for burglarizing a tool shed and stealing three firearms. Later in 1996, Kim was arrested and convicted for stealing items from the University of California at Santa Barbara bookstore.
In 1997, Kim was caught shoplifting at Costco. He was charged with multiple crimes including felony burglary for the Costco crimes, a strike for the tool shed burglary, and a misdemeanor petty theft. Kim negotiated a plea bargain and was sentenced to three years in prison.
As part of his plea deal, Kim signed the following waiver: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States a plea of ‘Guilty’/‘No Contest’ could result in deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, and/or denial of naturalization.” On December 16, 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against Kim, based on his status as an alien who has been convicted of an “aggravated felony” (as a result of his plea deal).
Kim claimed that when he entered his plea, he did not know the sentences would make him deportable by INS. Kim began filing collateral challenges to his criminal convictions to eliminate them as the basis for deportation.
After a series of unsuccessful challenges, Kim filed the motions that lead to this case. He filed a “Motion to Vacate Judgment Coram Norbis,” seeking to vacate his 1997 guilty plea on the grounds that 1) he didn’t know that the plea deal would making him deportable; and 2) he didn’t know that South Korea was imprisoning Jehovah’s Witnesses (like himself). He argued that the plea was therefore not knowing, intelligent, free or voluntary. He also argued that he had ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not inform him of the immigration consequences of his criminal conviction.
The trial court granted Kim’s motion. The court based its decision in large part on the testimony of Kim’s lawyer who said that he was not fully aware of the immigration consequences of Kim’s plea bargain – and had he been aware he would have worked to structure a plea that didn’t have the same consequences. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Does Kim deserve a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his 1997 guilty plea?
Holding: The Court found that Kim was ineligible for a writ of error coram nobis.
The Court began by stating that the writ of coram nobis is a very limited remedy. It is only granted when all three of the following conditions are met: (1) Kim must show that some fact existed that, through no fault of his own, was not presented to the court that convicted him, but that would have changed the conviction; (2) the newly discovered evidence does not go to the merits of the issues tried; and (3) he did not know the new facts and could not have discovered them with due diligence at the time.
The Court found that Kim failed to meet the very strict criteria for a writ of coram nobis for both procedural and substantive reasons.
First, the Court found that Kim failed to show due diligence. The Court noted that Kim knew he was not a citizen when he signed the waiver alerting him to the possibility of deportation. Even after INS moved to deport him, he waited seven years to file the motion for writ of coram nobis.
Second, he did not seek out other remedies when he had the chance. For example, he could have petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus while he was still in prison or on parole.
Third, the Court found that Kim has engaged in the piecemeal presentation of claims – which is problematic when asking for such extraordinary relief.
The standard for coram nobis isn’t whether Kim would have plead guilty had he been armed with more facts. But rather, “newly discovered facts must establish a basic flaw that would have prevented rendition of the judgment.” There is no evidence that Kim’s sentencing judge would have refused to enter the plea deal, knowing that it might result in deportation.
Finally, the Court found that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was an inappropriate ground for coram nobis relief. Kim could have raised this as part of a claim for habeas corpus.
SCOCAL, People v. Kim , 45 Cal. 4th 1078, 202 P.3d 436, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-kim-33072) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v.

 v.

 § 1229
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.