California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jimenez, E066754 (Cal. App. 2017):
guilty.' [Citation.] Our Supreme Court has held, to obtain that relief, the following must be present: the defendant was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of the plea as required by section 1016.5, subdivision (a); there existed, at the time of the motion, more than a remote possibility that the conviction will have one or more of the specified adverse immigration consequences; and the defendant was prejudiced by the nonadvisement. [Citations.]" (People v. Arendtsz (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 613, 616-617.)
"The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice. [Citations.] The accused must prove it was reasonably probable he or she would not have entered a guilty, no contest or nolo contendere plea if properly advised. [Citations.] Our Supreme Court has explained: 'To that end, the defendant must provide a declaration or testimony stating that he or she would not have entered into the plea bargain if properly advised. It is up to the trial court to determine whether the defendant's assertion is credible, and the court may reject an assertion that is not supported by an explanation or other corroborating circumstances.' [Citations.] Our review is for an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]" (People v. Arendtsz, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 617.)
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.