The California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, has reversed the denial of a motion to vacate under section 1473.7 of the CA Penal Code, where the defendant initialed a plea form that stated she would be deported, excluded from admission, and denied naturalization, where the defense attorney testified that his custom was to ask about a defendant’s immigration status, where the defendant testified that she understood the immigration warnings to only indicated a possibility (not a certainty) of immigration consequences, and where the defense attorney’s notes erroneously stated that the defendant was a lawful permanent resident (she had DACA).
The trial court denied the motion, finding that the defendant had not proven that a third party was responsible for her misunderstanding of the immigration consequences of the plea. The appellate court reversed, noting that under its decision in Mejia, a defendant’s subjective misunderstanding of the immigration consequences is sufficient. The appellate court also noted that the denial of the defendant’s habeas petition did not prevent her from bringing a 1473.7 motion, as the habeas denial only concluded that her defense counsel did provide substandard representation, a different standard than that required under 1473.7.
The full text of People v. Jung can be found here: