The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has denied a motion to vacate under section 1473.7 of the Penal Code for failure to provide sufficient evidence of prejudice. The court noted that there was no contemporaneous evidence to support the defendant’s assertion that he would not have taken the plea if he had been properly advised of the immigration consequences of the plea. “Defendant could have provided contemporaneous evidence to support his claim that he had not been understandably admonished as to his immigration consequences. Such evidence could have included a declaration or testimony by his then defense counsel, David Ross, or the interpreter who signed the plea bargain form, Elias Uribe, or the hearing transcript from the June 24, 1997 hearing on his plea. He produced none of these, nor offered any explanation for not doing so.”
“Defendant’s declaration does contain statements to be considered in the context of contemporaneous evidence. Chief among these are his assertions of his family in the United States and his need to support them.” “[T]hese statements do not avail defendant. They simply emphasize that he elected to take the plea bargain to obtain release and return to his girlfriend and son and resume his job.”
The full text of People v. Bravo can be found here: