Opinion ID: 2524595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: any misadvice from counsel was harmless in light of the court's correct advisement

Text: The lead opinion notes a clear consensus nationwide that finds an affirmative misstatement regarding deportation may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. ( United States v. Mora-Gomez (E.D.Va. 1995) 875 F.Supp. 1208, 1212; see lead opn., ante, at pp. 445-446, 19 P.3d at p. 1185.) The cases cited are all distinguishable; none involved a judicial advisement similar to the one required by section 1016.5. The defendants in those cases were thus vulnerable to counsel's misadvice, as Resendiz was not. The section 1016.5 advisement should shield pleas from collateral attack. The Legislature designed the advisement to combat ignorance on the part of pleading defendants; a defendant must have the correct information, but it does not matter from whom he receives it. ( People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 536, 281 Cal.Rptr. 426 ( Quesada ).) The Court of Appeal upheld Quesada's plea because he received the correct information from counsel, even though the court failed to read the requisite advisement. ( Id. at p. 539, 281 Cal.Rptr. 426.) Consistent with the statute's purpose, Quesada pleaded with awareness of the potential consequences. As the Quesada court observed, the critical question is whether the defendant received the correct information. He is not entitled to multiple warnings on the subject. As the on-the-record pronouncements of the court carry more weight than the private remarks of counsel ( United States v. Parrino (2d Cir.1954) 212 F.2d 919, 921), judicial advisement ensures the Plea is intelligent, notwithstanding contrary guidance from counsel. Although the lead opinion notes the consensus holding that misadvice may constitute ineffective assistance absent judicial advisement, there is an even clearer consensus holding that misadvice, even if it amounts to deficient representation under Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is not prejudicial where the court provides the correct advice.