Filed 6/5/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B296742 (Super. Ct. No. KA010841) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. JOSEFINA RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant. Assume a defendant wishes to plead guilty to a crime. She is an immigrant and is told: 1) her plea of guilty may make her ineligible to become a U.S. citizen; or 2) her plea of guilty will make her ineligible to become a U.S. citizen. Is there a significant distinction between the two advisements? Our Supreme Court and the Legislature think there is. We, like all courts, must follow this view even when it involves the reversal of a plea of guilty that occurred three decades ago. We are mindful of the dissent’s concerns, but the Supreme Court and the Legislature have spoken. The result here is required by law. (See People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895; Pen. Code, § 1473.7.) 1 In section 1473.7, the Legislature broadened the standards to challenge guilty pleas involving advisements concerning immigration consequences. Josefina Ruiz appeals an order denying her recent motion to vacate her 1991 conviction for possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) following her no contest plea. Ruiz’s motion to vacate was filed pursuant to section 1473.7. She claimed her counsel did not advise her that a mandatory consequence of her plea would make her “permanently ineligible to ever become a legal resident of the United States.” We conclude Ruiz may pursue her current motion to vacate the conviction. She had filed an earlier unsuccessful motion to vacate the conviction in 2017. But that prior motion did not bar the current motion because it was based on a different ground and on an earlier version of section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions. FACTS In 1991, an informant told police that drug sales were occurring at Ruiz’s home. After a search of her home, the police found 19 grams of cocaine and approximately $4,100 in a duffle bag in Ruiz’s bedroom. Following her arrest, Ruiz entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pled no contest to possession for sale of cocaine base. She initialed an advisement in the written plea agreement stating, “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, the conviction for the offense charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” (Italics added.) All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1 otherwise stated. 2 On December 16, 2016, Ruiz filed a motion to vacate her conviction and set a hearing date for January 6, 2017 (“2017 motion”). The 2017 motion was entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Reopen Case and Vacate Conviction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §[§] 1016.5 and 1473.7].” The 2017 motion argued that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals