Filed 3/26/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re REYNA PEREZ HERNANDEZ G054623 on Habeas Corpus. (Super. Ct. No. 14CF4064) OPINION Original proceedings; petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petition granted. Munger, Tolles & Olson, Joseph D. Lee and Peter E. Gratzinger for Petitioner. Dae Keun Kwon, Adrienna Wong and Jennifer Pasquarella for American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Immigrant Defense Project, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Eric D. Vandevelde, Jennifer E. Rosenberg, Jessica R. Culpepper and Daniel R. Adler for Former Prosecutors and Defenders as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent. * * * INTRODUCTION We grant Reyna Perez Hernandez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to have her conviction for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of 1 sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 vacated and the opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea. The record both shows her appointed trial counsel failed to advise her before she entered her guilty plea that her plea would subject her to mandatory deportation, and contains evidence, including contemporaneous objective evidence, she would not have entered her guilty plea had she been so advised. We publish this opinion because it discusses evidence establishing ineffective assistance of counsel, including prejudice, for failure to advise of mandatory deportation consequences attached to a guilty plea. The parties agree the law is clear that at the time Hernandez entered her plea, and now, a conviction for violating section 11378 carries with it the penalty of mandatory deportation. When an immigration consequence is “truly clear, as it was in this case,” Hernandez’s trial counsel’s duty to give correct advice “is equally clear.” (Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, 375 (Padilla) [if a plea carries with it the consequence of mandatory deportation, counsel must so advise].) The record does not show that Hernandez’s trial counsel informed her that her guilty plea would result in mandatory deportation. 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified. 2 Hernandez also established resultant prejudice. Hernandez, a legal permanent resident, has lived in the United States since she was three years old. She is the single parent of three minor children (their father has passed away) who are all citizens, one of whom has serious medical issues. She has been gainfully employed as a medical assistant. She had no prior criminal record other than traffic infractions. Shortly after she pleaded guilty and served 43 days in jail, she was taken into custody by federal immigration officials. Instead of signing the form presented to her stating her agreement to deportation, she refused to sign and remained in immigration custody for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals