The California Supreme Court has reversed the denial of a Penal Code section 1473.7 motion filed by a longtime lawful permanent resident who sought to vacate her guilty plea to two marijuana offenses, holding that courts evaluating such motions must look beyond the written record of the plea and consider the totality of the circumstances bearing on the defendant's actual, subjective understanding of the plea's immigration consequences. The defendant had lived in the United States for 36 years and had extensive family ties, but was placed in removal proceedings after a trip to Mexico, notwithstanding a signed plea form stating that her plea "will result" in deportation and an attorney declaration that he had explained the immigration consequences to her.
The Court held that evidence a defendant received the standard immigration consequences advisement, and even signed a form saying she understood it, does not defeat a showing of error, since the ultimate question is the defendant's actual state of mind rather than what she was told. Applying that standard, the Court found the defendant's testimony that she never truly grasped she would be deported was corroborated by objective evidence, including that she obtained permission from probation to travel abroad and voluntarily presented herself to immigration officials at the airport on her return, conduct inconsistent with someone who understood her status had already been forfeited. The Court also found a reasonable probability that she would have sought an immigration-neutral plea or gone to trial had she understood the consequences, given her lack of any criminal record and the relatively light sentence she actually faced.
The full text of People v. Hernandez can be found here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S282186.PDF