A Cautionary Tale: She pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Then she visited Mexico not knowing she couldn’t return
Niguel Duara for CalMatters reports on the California Supreme Court decision last week in People v. Hernandez. Angela Hernandez signed a form acknowledging that she could be deported after a criminal conviction pursuant to a plea deal. But the California Supreme Court held that is not enough to check a form’s boxes — a defendant has to “meaningfully understand” the legal consequences of the plea.
In the opinion by Justice Groban, the court wrote
"This case concerns . . . Angela Hernandez, a long-time lawful permanent resident of the United States who seeks to withdraw her guilty plea to two controlled substance charges. Two years after entering the plea, Hernandez traveled to Mexico. Returning home to California, she presented herself to immigration authorities at the airport, who detained her and initiated removal proceedings against her. Hernandez claims that she did not understand that pleading guilty would make her subject to deportation. She claims that if she had understood this, she would have attempted to negotiate a different plea or taken her case to trial.
The trial court denied Hernandez’s motion. The court concluded that her attorney had “properly advised” her “regarding the immigration consequences of entering a plea” — a conclusion based largely on Hernandez’s initials next to the immigration consequences advisement on her plea form and her attorney’s signature under a preprinted statement on the same form attesting that he had explained the immigration consequences to her. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
On independent review, we reverse.
[A] court should consider the totality of the circumstances and focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding. Evidence that a defendant received the immigration consequences advisement . . . before entering their plea is relevant, but not dispositive. Courts rely on defense counsel to ensure that defendants meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of a plea and can make informed decisions whether to accept those consequences. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we hold that Hernandez has established prejudicial error that damaged her `ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences' of her convictions." (citations and footnote omitted).
