Opinion ID: 1042995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consular rights

Text: Defendant contends that we should order an evidentiary hearing to determine whether failure to advise him he had the right to consult the Mexican consulate was prejudicial. We disagree. In Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Judg. of Mar. 31 (Avena), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ―considered a claim brought by Mexico against the United States. The ICJ held that, based on violations of the Vienna Convention, 51 named Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their state-court convictions and sentences in the United States,‖ regardless of any forfeiture of this claim under state law. (Medellin v. Texas (2008) 552 U.S. 491, 497-498.) ―President George W. Bush determined, through a 2005 Memorandum for the Attorney General [citation], that the United States would ‗discharge its international obligations‘ under Avena ‗by having State courts give effect to the decision.‘ ‖ (Medellin v. Texas, at p. 498.) The high court subsequently held that ―neither Avena nor the President‘s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law‖ binding on state courts. (Ibid.; see In re Martinez (2009) 46 Cal.4th 945, 949-950.) Here, defendant asserts he was one of the Mexican nationals named in the Avena decision, he was not notified of his right to seek the assistance of the Mexican consulate, and Mexico was not aware he was in custody until after the death penalty verdict was entered in this case. But these assertions are outside the 25 record on appeal. Indeed, defendant acknowledges that the ―appellate record in this case does not even affirmatively establish [defendant‘s] Mexican nationality, much less a violation of consular rights, or prejudice stemming therefrom.‖ He requests, however, that he have ―an opportunity to make a particularized showing‖ at an evidentiary hearing and be provided discovery, the opportunity for investigation, and the assistance of counsel and the Mexican consulate. Whether defendant can establish his Mexican nationality, a violation of his consular rights, and prejudice from an asserted violation of consular rights based on evidence outside of the record on appeal is a matter for a habeas corpus petition. (People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 711.) Defendant contends that habeas corpus is not an effective remedy because even if an evidentiary hearing were to be granted on one or more of his claims, he would bear the burden of showing prejudice. Relying on language in deportation cases decided by federal courts, he contends that at the hearing he is requesting he need only ―make a prima facie showing that (1) he did not know of his right to contact consular officials; (2) he would have done so had he known; and (3) such consultation would have led to the appointment of counsel and/or assistance in creating a more favorable record to present to the court.‖ Once this showing is made, he says, the burden would shift to the state to show ―that contact with the consular officials would not have resulted in assistance.‖ But the high court has said it is ―extremely doubtful‖ that a defendant can secure reversal of his conviction on a consular rights claim with no showing of prejudice. (See Breard v. Greene (1998) 523 U.S. 371, 377 [―Even were Breard‘s Vienna Convention claim properly raised and proved, it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial.‖].) Nor are we persuaded by defendant‘s speculative contention 26 that habeas corpus is not an effective remedy because adjudication of his claim will be delayed pending appointment of habeas corpus counsel or because ―[t]here is no guarantee that this [c]ourt will grant an evidentiary hearing on any [habeas corpus] claims.‖