How have courts dealt with a motion to vacate a guilty plea?

Fifth, we observe that there is a requirement that a defendant show "reasonable diligence to succeed on a motion to vacate" under section 1016.5. (People v. Totari (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1208.) "'[T]he trial court may properly consider the defendant's delay in making his application, . . . if "considerable time" has elapsed between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw the plea, [since] the burden is on the defendant to explain and justify the delay. [Citation.] The reason for requiring due diligence is obvious. Substantial prejudice to the People may result if the case must proceed to trial after a long delay.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1207 [delay of 13 years in filing motion could potentially be excused where there was no evidence the defendant had been advised of the immigration consequences of his plea and promptly motioned the court for relief upon deportation].) Here, defendant entered his plea on October 30, 2002, but did not file the motion to vacate the plea until December 27, 2016, more than 14 years later. Moreover, there was evidence that defendant was advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, the declaration defendant initialed and signed himself. Thus, defendant failed to show reasonable diligence in filing the motion to vacate the plea or good cause for excusing the delay.

Page 8

Sixth, and finally, defendant failed to show prejudice, i.e., that he faced "more than just a remote possibility of deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization." (People v. Shaw (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 492, 499.) Although the record reflects that defendant is not a citizen of the United States, nothing indicates anything more regarding the likelihood of any adverse immigration consequences being taken against defendant. (Id. at p. 500 [defendant's "proof of noncitizenship, without more, was insufficient to satisfy his burden under section 1016.5, subdivision (b)."].) Therefore, the court acted within the scope of its discretion in denying defendant's motion.

The judgment is affirmed.