Opinion ID: 1159607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Showing conviction may have specified consequences

Text: Petitioner next contends that, to the extent it is based on the Yun Declaration, the trial court's implied factual finding that defendant actually faces adverse immigration consequences from his 1992 plea is insufficiently supported. Petitioner asserts the Yun Declaration is nearly entirely conclusory and devoid of facts. Citing People v. Williams (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 502, 510, 106 Cal.Rptr. 324, petitioner argues the Yun Declaration is not competent evidence because it is inadmissible hearsay. Section 1016.5, itself, is silent about what constitutes a sufficient showing under its subdivision (b). The only decisions directly to address the question simply recognize that, while section 1016.5, subdivision (b) implies the need to show more than just a remote possibility of deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization ( People v. Shaw, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 499, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 915), `where there is a sufficient showing on the record from the words of the court itself ( ibid., 9 quoting People v. Guzman, supra, 116 Cal. App.3d at p. 192, 172 Cal.Rptr. 34), the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. People v. Williams, supra, 30 Cal. App.3d 502, 106 Cal.Rptr. 324, upon which petitioner relies in attacking the Yun Declaration, is not apposite. In Williams, involving a hearing on a motion to dismiss criminal charges for dilatory prosecution, the Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's refusal to accept into evidence the defendant's declaration under penalty of perjury about his place of residence, noting the defendant had refused to take the stand and be subjected to cross-examination. ( Id. at p. 510, 106 Cal.Rptr. 324.) In Williams, it was the defendant who refused to answer material questions on cross-examination; accordingly, the trial court could properly exclude his sworn affidavit on his own behalf. Here, by contrast, the declaration is not that of a party who refused to answer questions at trial, but that of merely a witness (Attorney Yun) whose evidence relevant to a motion was taken by affidavit. (Accord, State v. Brown (Mo. 1977) 549 S.W.2d 336, 344.) Ultimately, we need not pass on the admissibility of the Yun Declaration because the record before the trial court contained more than sufficient support, apart from that declaration, for the court's implied finding that defendant's conviction based on his 1992 plea might, as of the time the court was considering defendant's motion, actually have the consequences for him of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization (§ 1016.5, subd. (b)). As discussed, both in its written opposition to defendant's motion and at the hearing, petitioner impliedly conceded defendant faced immigration problems. The trial court, moreover, possessed the record of defendant's criminal history, including his 1997 conviction, which, as a matter of law, in combination with his earlier convictions, put defendant at risk of adverse immigration consequences, including exclusion from admission to the United States for having committed crimes of moral turpitude. (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(B); id, § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); see Matter of Serna (B.I.A.1992) 20 I. & N. Dec. 579 [1992 WL 301779]; Matter of M. (B.I.A.1948) 3 I. & N. Dec. 272 [194B WL 6270].) The record also reveals that the trial court possessed documentary evidence that a border patrol hold had been placed on defendant by federal immigration authorities. We conclude that defendant, in moving to vacate his 1992 conviction under section 1016.5, showed that, at the time of the motion, he faced more than just a remote possibility of deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization ( People v. Shaw, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 499, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 915). Therefore, the trial court's implied finding that conviction of the offense to which defendant pleaded ... nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant specified in the statute (§ 1016.5, subd. (b)) was adequately supported.