Guilty plea vacated where defendant did not understand immigration consequences of plea and was prejudiced

People v. Benitez-Torres (Cal. Ct. App., July 23, 2025, No. G063400) 2025 WL 2057234, at *1

Summary: Under Penal Code section 1473.7, a person may move to have a guilty plea vacated if:  (1) he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of the guilty plea, and (2) he was prejudiced thereby (there is a reasonable chance he would have rejected the plea). Prejudice is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. (People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529 (Vivar).)

In January 2015, Juan Carlos Benitez-Torres (Benitez) was 37 years old, his wife was a United States citizen, and he had five children. Benitez was a lawful permanent resident who was brought to this country at 12 years old. Police stopped a car Benitez was driving, that was not registered to Benitez. Police did a search of the car and found methamphetamine in hidden compartments.

The People charged Benitez with narcotics offenses. Benitez’s family hired attorney Kenneth Reed for $15,000. Reed only appeared four times on the case, he did not file a motion to suppress the evidence, and Reed appears to have conducted essentially no investigation.

In August 2015, Reed advised Benitez to accept a three-year offer from the trial court. At that time, Reed had an obligation to understand and accurately explain the immigration consequences of guilty pleas to noncitizen clients. (See Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, 360 (Padilla).) Benitez pleaded guilty and was deported following his release from custody.

In January 2023, Benitez filed a section 1473.7 motion. At a hearing, Reed testified that he did not recall the case, but he ordinarily advised clients with immigration issues that they may “need to hire an immigration attorney.” The trial court denied Benitez’s motion.

The Court of Appeal conducted an independent standard of review, and found it likely that Benitez did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea, and there is a reasonable chance Benitez would have rejected the plea, and taken his chances at a trial (or at least at a motion to suppress the evidence), if he had meaningfully understood those consequences.

The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the trial court, which was a denial of Benitez’s section 1473.7 motion. On remand, it directed the trial court to vacate Benitez’s convictions, and then to set the matter for trial.

The Guilty Pleas

On August 26, 2015, Benitez appeared in court with Reed. Before the case was called, Benitez had signed and initialed numerous paragraphs in a seven-page felony plea form indicating that he was pleading guilty to the charged crimes and the sentencing enhancement.

The form document included the following preprinted language: “Immigration consequences: I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, my conviction for the offenses charge will have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”

Reed signed the following statement: “I am the attorney of record for defendant. I have explained to defendant each of the rights set forth on this form. I have discussed the charges and the facts with defendant. I have studied the possible defenses to the charges and discussed those possible defenses with defendant. I have discussed the possible sentence ranges and immigration consequences with defendant. I also have discussed the contents of this form with defendant.”

The trial court called the matter, and made inquiries of Benitez: “You have a right to a jury trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses should you have a trial, to testify or not depending on your choice, and the right to the court’s free services to subpoena witnesses. [¶] If you are not a citizen, you will hereafter be deported, denied naturalization or excluded from the U.S. [¶] Do you understand those rights and agree to waive or give those rights up in order to enter your plea of guilty?”

Benitez responded in the affirmative and plead guilty.

The Section 1473.7 Motion

On May 3, 2023, Benitez filed a section 1473.7 motion to vacate his 2015 drug convictions. The People filed an opposition. Benitez later filed a reply and a request for an evidentiary hearing.

On October 6, 2013, the trial court denied Benitez’s motion after an evidentiary hearing. (

Benitez’ claim he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his guilty plea

Benitez claims that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his 2015 guilty pleas, and he was prejudiced.

Relevant Principles of Law

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held that criminal defense attorneys have an affirmative obligation to understand and accurately explain the immigration consequences of a guilty plea to their noncitizen clients. (Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 360)  [“While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration reforms over time have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited the authority of judges to alleviate the harsh consequences of deportation”].)

Effective January 1, 2016, the Legislature augmented the Penal Code, stating that immigration consequences “may be by far the most serious penalty flowing from the conviction.” (§ 1016.2, subd. (c).) “It is the intent of the Legislature to codify [Padilla] and related California case law and to encourage the growth of such case law in furtherance of justice and the findings and declarations of this section.” (§ 1016.2, subd. (h).)

“ ‘Defense counsel shall provide accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, and when consistent with the goals of and with the informed consent of the defendant, and consistent with professional standards, defend against those consequences.” (§ 1016.3, subd. (a).)

Effective January 1, 2017, the Legislature also created a remedy for criminal defendants: “A person who is no longer in custody may file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence for any of the following reasons: [¶] (1) The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. A finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.”4 (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1), italics added.)

“Prejudicial error may result from ‘the moving party’s own mistake of law or inability to understand the potential adverse immigration consequences of the plea.’ [Citations.] At the heart of the prejudicial error analysis ‘is the mindset of the defendant and what he or she understood—or didn’t understand—at the time the plea was taken.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 698, 713–714 (Lopez).)

Our Supreme Court has held that “showing prejudicial error under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.” (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 529.)

“A ‘reasonable probability’ ‘does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.’ (Lopez, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at p. 714.) “ ‘When courts assess whether a petitioner has shown that reasonable probability, they consider the totality of the circumstances. [Citation.] Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.’ ” (Ibid.)

Mandatory removal from the United States is a consequence of being convicted of a crime deemed an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. (Long-standing federal “precedents hold that whether a state classifies an offense as a “misdemeanor” is irrelevant to determining whether it is an “aggravated felony” for purposes of federal law.” (Habibi v. Holder (9th Cir. 2011) 673 F.3d 1082, 1088.)

“[A] conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), is not an aggravated felony under immigration law if the record of conviction … shows that the defendant was convicted of ‘offering’ to transport, sell, furnish, or give away a controlled substance.” (People v. Bautista (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 229, 238.)

Application and Analysis

At that time Reed did not have a statutory obligation to “provide accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition.” (See § 1016.3, subd. (a)(1).) However, Reed’s testimony arguably establishes that his legal representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness given the United States Supreme Court’s prior holding in Padilla. (See Padilla, supra, 559 U.S. at p. 360, 130 S.Ct. 1473 [defense attorneys have an affirmative obligation to understand and accurately explain the immigration consequences of a guilty plea to their noncitizen clients].)

“Defendant was required only to show that one or more of the established errors were prejudicial and damaged his ‘ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of [his] plea ….’ (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) If it were otherwise, we would have to engage in an analysis that the Legislature never meant to require, which in turn, would render the statute meaningless.” (Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009.)

Given all the surrounding circumstances,  Benitez has established that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea, and there is a reasonable probability he would have rejected the trial court’s offer and taken his chances at trial—or at least at a motion to suppress the evidence—had he meaningfully understood those mandatory consequences. (Lopez, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at p. 714, 299 Cal.Rptr.3d 701 [“ ‘ “A ‘reasonable probability’ ‘does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility’ ” ’ ”].)

Disposition

The order of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions to allow Benitez to withdraw his 2015 guilty pleas.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.