California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Samayoa, B256993 (Cal. App. 2014):
Defendant contends that the advisement he received"if you are not a citizen of the United States, pleading guilty to this offense could result in your deportation or denial of reentry privileges and denial of citizenship and the denial of work privileges"failed to advise him in the "statutory language required under . . . [section] 1016.5" that his guilty plea would have the immigration consequence of "exclusion from admission to the United States." If by this contention defendant is arguing that a section 1016.5 advisement must follow exactly that statute's language, the contention fails because "only substantial compliance is required under section 1016.5 as long as the defendant is specifically advised of all three separate immigration consequences of his plea." (People v. Gutierrez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 169, 174 [rejecting the argument that "any variance from the literal language of the legislation requires a plea to be vacated"].) The
Page 5
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.