by Douglas Ankney

The Supreme Court of California held that Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1)’s error inquiry considers all relevant evidence to determine what a defendant actually understood when entering a plea. The statute protects the ability to “meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept” actual or potential immigration consequences. An advisement is relevant evidence but does not determine error. The Court ruled that the defendant proved error and prejudice.

Background

Angela Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, immigrated at age 19. By her 2013 plea, 36 years later, she had held lawful permanent resident status for over 20 years. Her husband and all five children lived in the United States, as did 14 grandchildren. She had no criminal record. She pleaded as charged to marijuana transportation and possession for sale. The parties apparently regarded the convictions as mandating removal and exclusion and foreclosing nearly all relief.

Hernandez initialed an English form warning that a noncitizen’s plea “will result” in immigration consequences and that deportation is “mandatory for some offenses.” Counsel and an interpreter signed separate preprinted statements about the form’s explanation and translation. Counsel spoke no Spanish, first appeared at the plea hearing, and spoke with Hernandez through an interpreter only that day. The colloquy never mentioned immigration. She received probation and 180 days in jail.

Two years later, Hernandez made a probation-approved trip to Mexico. Her attempted reentry through Los Angeles International Airport resulted in detention, seizure of her permanent-resident card, and removal proceedings. She contested removal and petitioned to set aside the plea. Counsel had died, and his records could not be obtained. Hernandez testified that certainty of deportation would have led her to trial.

The trial court denied relief, relying on plea documents to find counsel had “properly advised” Hernandez and rejecting her contrary account as “post hoc assertions” contradicted by the record. After the Court of Appeal affirmed, the California Supreme Court twice ordered reconsideration following intervening decisions. The Court of Appeal affirmed each time. Its divided third ruling deferred to an implied credibility finding and concluded that Hernandez had not proved a lack of meaningful understanding. The California Supreme Court granted review to determine whether Hernandez had proved statutory error and prejudice.

Analysis

Error Framework and
Relevant Evidence

The Court began by reviewing § 1473.7(a)(1), which requires proof of qualifying error and prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. It independently reviewed the record and statutory determination, deferring as appropriate to findings grounded in the trial judge’s firsthand observations, not written materials. People v. Vivar, 485 P.3d 425 (Cal. 2021).

The controlling perspective is what the defendant actually understood at plea entry, the Court noted. People v. Carrillo, 101 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2024). Error may take any of three forms: (1) failure to grasp the consequences, (2) ignorance that obstructs informed efforts to avoid them through bargaining or trial, or (3) unknowing acceptance. Proof of ineffective assistance is unnecessary. Vivar; People v. Camacho, 32 Cal. App. 5th 998 (2019). The statute likewise does not require a specific legal mistake by counsel or the court. The Court explained that claimed misunderstanding requires objective corroboration, but “no specific kind of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.” People v. Espinoza, 522 P.3d 1074 (Cal. 2023).

Plea records, counsel files, testimony, and declarations are possible sources. See Espinoza; People v. Benitez-Torres, 112 Cal. App. 5th 1252 (2025); People v. Manzanilla, 80 Cal. App. 5th 891 (2022); People v. Rodriguez, 68 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2021). Counsel-related proof includes advice, alternative pleas, negotiation, and trial risks, benefits, or defenses. See Carrillo; People v. Curiel, 92 Cal. App. 5th 1160 (2023); People v. Villalba, 89 Cal. App. 5th 659 (2023); People v. Manzanilla, 80 Cal. App. 5th 891 (2022). Forms, colloquies, and consultation opportunities are relevant, but generic warnings cannot alone prove accurate advice or understanding. See Espinoza; People v. Padron, 109 Cal. App. 5th 950 (2025); Manzanilla.

Courts also consider immigration status, priorities, and ties, according to the Court. See Espinoza; Padron; Curiel. Language ability, individual traits, and criminal-case experience can affect comprehension. See Padron; Carrillo; Manzanilla; People v. Diaz, 76 Cal. App. 5th 102 (2022). Conduct before immigration officials may support or undermine claimed ignorance. See Espinoza; Curiel; People v. Alatorre, 70 Cal. App. 5th 747 (2021). Expressions of concern to family, counsel, probation, or the court are relevant. See Vivar; Manzanilla; Diaz; Camacho.

Hernandez’s Showing and Immigration Advisement

Hernandez’s categorical assertion that she was “never told” she “could possibly be deported” was contradicted by the record, the Court found. Nevertheless, an advisement does not defeat statutory error. Espinoza; Padron; Manzanilla. Her authorized departure and attempted reentry strongly corroborated her lack of understanding. Long residence, family ties, interpreter reliance, no criminal experience, and the abbreviated plea likewise supported it, the Court reasoned.

The Court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that accepting Hernandez’s account would require discrediting her plea answers and finding that counsel and the interpreter had misled the trial court. The signed statements suggested explanation and translation but not accurate or complete advice from counsel, the Court explained. Because Hernandez depended on Spanish interpretation, evidence of translation mattered. However, the form said consequences “will result” while deportation was mandatory for “some offenses.” Judicial warnings cannot replace individualized advice; plea judges need not provide it, the Court explained.

The record contained no request for more time to advise Hernandez or negotiate, no charge reduction, and no discussion of alternatives. Thus, the Court determined that she lacked an informed choice between another disposition and trial. Her ties and opposition to removal also showed that she had not knowingly accepted deportation. The Court concluded that all three error forms were established. It observed that further record development “will be appropriate in many” appeals then pending from § 1473.7(a)(1) denials but concluded it unnecessary when the existing record establishes entitlement, as here. The Court also noted that the Legislature recently amended § 1016.5, subd. (a) to require that the advisement be given “verbatim,” using the statutory “may” rather than the more definitive “will” language that many trial courts, including the court here, had been employing. However, for pleas accepted before January 1, 2026, including Hernandez’s, § 1016.5, subd. (e) does not require a court to vacate a conviction solely because the advisement was not given verbatim.

Prejudice

The Court next assessed prejudice under the totality of the circumstances. A defendant must show through objective evidence a “reasonable probability” that correct understanding of immigration consequences and defensive options would have prompted rejection of the plea, the Court stated. Vivar. The probability must exceed an abstract possibility but need not be more likely than not. The inquiry focuses on informed choice. Prospects for a better result are secondary. Vivar; Carrillo.

Hernandez’s residence, family relationships, and opposition to removal corroborated her desire to avoid deportation, according to the Court. Her lack of a criminal record and the prosecution’s acceptance of probation and county jail gave her some basis to seek an immigration-neutral disposition. Because the plea reduced no charges and sentencing exposure was limited, trial could rationally be preferable to certain deportation.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and instructed it to remand. The Court further instructed that the trial court must grant Hernandez’s § 1473.7 motion, set aside the convictions, and proceed in conformity with its opinion. See: People v. Hernandez, 594 P.3d 780 (Cal. 2026).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login