Opinion ID: 147651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vacatur for Rehabilitative Purposes

Text: A conviction vacated for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings may be used as a conviction in removal proceedings whereas a conviction vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings may not. Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.2006). Poblete Mendoza argues that because the state court order vacating his conviction for shoplifting is silent on its face as to the reason for the vacatur and because the Arizona statute under which his conviction was vacated does not use the word rehabilitated, the government has not met its burden of proving that his conviction was vacated for rehabilitative purposes. The government claims that the record underlying the vacatur order clearly shows that Poblete Mendoza's conviction was vacated for rehabilitative purposes. Poblete Mendoza filed a motion with the Arizona state court to set aside [his] conviction for shoplifting and for a restoration of any and all rights that may be affected by the conviction. See Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-907. As grounds for his motion, Poblete Mendoza stated that [d]efendant successfully completed his probation and was discharged therefrom .... No other court sanction or requirement remains to be completed. This motion was granted by use of a form order citing to Poblete Mendoza's motion to Vacate/Set Aside Conviction/Withdraw Guilty Plea. In Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, we held that an alien's prior vacated conviction, which had been vacated under the precise vacatur statute under which Poblete Mendoza's shoplifting conviction was vacated, could be used by the government in a subsequent removal proceeding. See 261 F.3d 771, 773-74 (9th Cir.2001); see also Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-907 ([T]he conviction may be used as a conviction if such conviction would be admissible had it not been set aside and may be pleaded and provided in any subsequent prosecution....). Read alongside Nath, Murillo-Espinoza stands for the proposition that any vacatur under this particular statute is a vacatur for rehabilitative purposes and that therefore, the vacated conviction may be used in subsequent removal proceedings. We thus hold that the vacatur of Poblete Mendoza's conviction for shoplifting in Arizona was for rehabilitative purposes and therefore, the government could use this conviction in his subsequent removal proceeding. PETITION DENIED.