 NEWS FROM THE COURTS - CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS
Hugo Rangel Resendiz, a permanent resident of the US for 25 years, pled guilty in 1997 to possession of cocaine and marijuana with the intent to sell. On the advice of his attorney, he signed a form saying that he understood that if he was not a citizen, a conviction could result in his deportation. The form had a separate section indicating that the signer had discussed its contents with his attorney. At the plea hearing, Resendiz, along with five others, was told by the judge that a conviction could result in their deportation if they were not citizens. Resendiz was sentenced to three years probation and 180 days in prison.
After he was released from prison, the INS took him into custody and charged him with being deportable because of an aggravated felony drug offense. Resendiz hired a new lawyer who filed a motion with the trial court seeking to withdraw the guilty plea. At the hearing on this motion he testified that his original attorney had told him that the guilty plea would not result in his deportation, and that it would only prevent him from becoming a US citizen. He also said that he was not guilty, and pled guilty only to avoid the possibility of a sentence of five years in prison. The motion was denied. Resendiz appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, vacating the conviction and allowing him to withdraw the guilty plea. The state then appealed.
The assistance of counsel is a constitutional right, and cases have established that for the right to have any meaning, the assistance must be effective. If, because of ineffective assistance, a defendant pleads guilty, his constitutional rights have been violated. Whether counsel was ineffective is determined by whether it prejudiced the defendant – that is, whether, in the absence of the attorney, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. While the state argued that there should be no ineffective assistance of counsel claims allowed over immigration issues, the court declined to make such a rule, finding that affirmative misadvice as to immigration consequences can be ineffective assistance of counsel.
California law requires that defendants be advised that guilty pleas can have adverse immigration consequences. The state argued that this requirement should shield guilty pleas from later attack when the defendant is placed in deportation proceedings. Despite this rule, it does not eliminate the requirement under the federal constitution that a criminal defendant receive effective assistance of counsel.
The State also argued that because the immigration advice was not part of the criminal case, and that the plea was entered voluntarily, it was merely collateral and should not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court found that while the immigration consequences of a guilty plea are collateral to the criminal case, this did not mean that they were not the proper subjects of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
While the court found that in the circumstances presented an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could be raised, it found that the claim was not proven. The court found that there was no obligation for the defense attorney to investigate the possible immigration consequences, and that even though the attorney had assured Resendiz that there would be no immigration problems because of the plea, an action the court called “irresponsible,” the attorney’s actions did not prejudice Resendiz.
Resendiz could not prove that if he had received accurate advice he would not have pled guilty, and even had he gone to trial there was still a possibility that he could end up being deported.
While Resendiz did not benefit from this ruling, it will provide a new avenue of relief for many immigrants who pled guilty without fully understanding all the implications of such a plea.
The opinion is available online at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S078879.PDF
| 
