People v. Patterson: the California Supreme Court, Immigration Advice, and You
| Publication year | 2017 |
| Author | By Albert Camacho and Graciela Martinez |
By Albert Camacho and Graciela Martinez*
As we all know, criminal defense lawyers are required to properly advise their clients about the potential immigration consequences of any plea in a criminal proceeding. The California Supreme Court has provided counsel with another reminder of this requirement in the case of People v. Patterson.1 In order to fully understand Patterson, the starting point is the United States Supreme Court's ruling on this issue, so a quick review of Padilla v. Kentucky2 would be in order. Padilla holds that:
"when the law is not succinct and straightforward ... a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear, as it was in this case, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear."3
Therefore, in situations where deportation is clearly mandated, Padilla requires defense counsel to advise as such.
That unfortunately did not happen in Patterson. Patterson, a Canadian citizen who has resided in the United States since 1996, was charged in a nine-count4 complaint and at the preliminary hearing entered pleas to the felony evading charge and felony possession of ecstasy.5 Patterson was granted felony probation and ordered to serve 180 days in custody, servable on a work release program, as he was a registered nurse.6 Six months after the plea, Patterson sought to have the plea withdrawn pursuant to Penal Code section 1018,7 stating that at the time of the plea he did not know, and his counsel did not advise, that the plea to the possession of ecstasy charge would render him deportable due to the fact that it was a controlled substance conviction.8
The trial court denied the request to withdraw the plea, citing that the court had advised him pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5 at the time of the plea that the conviction(s) may have serious immigration consequences.9 Mr. Patterson appealed that denial to the Court of Appeal, and contemporaneously filed a habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court, claiming that his counsel was ineffective for: 1) not advising him that the plea to the ecstasy charge would lead to automatic deportation, and 2) for not trying to secure an immigration-neutral disposition.10 The Superior Court denied the habeas petition, and that issue was also taken up to the Court of Appeal.11
The Court of Appeal consolidated both the appeal of the plea withdrawal motion and habeas petition.12 The Court of Appeal then affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea withdrawal motion, concluding that the Penal Code section 1016.5 advisement sufficiently informed Patterson of the immigration consequences of the conviction.13 The Court of Appeal then denied the habeas petition, concluding that trial counsel was not ineffective and that Patterson had been advised that serious immigration consequences could result from the conviction, as evidenced by his initials in the box on the felony plea form stating that his conviction may lead...
To continue reading
Request your trial