Opinion ID: 2524595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel knew petitioner was concerned about immigration consequences

Text: Petitioner in this case made plain to counsel that he deemed immigration consequences important in deciding whether to plead guilty to the charges against him. Indeed, the People conceded below that petitioner told his trial counsel he wanted to protect his permanent residency status. We long have recognized that criminal convictions may have dire consequences under federal immigration law ( People v. Superior Court (Giron), supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 798, 114 Cal.Rptr. 596, 523 P.2d 636) and that such consequences are material matters ( id. at p. 797, 114 Cal.Rptr. 596, 523 P.2d 636) for noncitizen defendants faced with pleading decisions. Thus, even before the Legislature expressly recognized the unfairness inherent in holding noncitizens to pleas they entered without knowing the consequent immigration risks (see § 1016.5, subd. (d), added by Stats. 1977, ch. 1088, § 1, p. 3495), we held that justice may require permitting one who pleads guilty without knowledge of or reason to suspect [immigration] consequences to withdraw the plea. ( People v. Superior Court (Giron ), at p. 798, 114 Cal.Rptr. 596, 523 P.2d 636 [permitting withdrawal of guilty plea to marijuana possession charge]; see also § 1016.5, subd. (c) [Nothing in this section ... 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].) [13] The United States Supreme Court, too, has recognized that deportation is a drastic measure and at times the equivalent of banishment or exile. ( Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan (1948) 333 U.S. 6, 10, 68 S.Ct. 374, 92 L.Ed. 433.) To banish [noncitizens] from home, family, and adopted country is punishment of the most drastic kind whether done at the time when they were convicted or later. ( Lehmann v. U.S. ex rel. Carson (1957) 353 U.S. 685, 691, 77 S.Ct. 1022, 1 L.Ed.2d 1122 (cone, opn. of Black, J.).) Petitioner has lived in this country most of his adult life and has two children who are United States citizens. That petitioner discussed his permanent residency status with his counsel, emphasizing his desire to keep his green card, is therefore not surprising.