California Supreme Court Vacates Guilty Plea Over Immigration Understanding

The California Supreme Court reversed a 2013 guilty plea entered by Angela Hernandez, a Mexican-born permanent resident, after finding that she did not “meaningfully understand” the immigration consequences of her plea. Hernandez had signed a form warning that a conviction could trigger deportation, but the court ruled that merely checking a box was insufficient. The justices ordered the 5th District Court of Appeals to return the case to the trial court and vacate her convictions.

Calmatters

Hernandez was charged with two drug offenses in Kern County in 2013. At the time she was 55, a legal permanent resident of 19 years, and had close family in the United States. She pleaded guilty, received a 180-day sentence of which she served 27 days, and later obtained probation-department permission to travel to Mexico. Upon returning to Los Angeles International Airport, a customs official detained her and initiated removal proceedings. Earlier appeals had upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court identified legal errors concerning her comprehension of the plea’s immigration impact.

Calmatters

Justice Joshua Groban, writing for the majority, emphasized that Hernandez’s post-plea actions—seeking permission to leave the United States, traveling to Mexico, and attempting lawful re-entry—supported an inference that she did not “meaningfully understand” the immigration consequences. Justice Carol Corrigan, in a partial concurrence and dissent, called for a fuller factual presentation on remand, noting that the trial court should resolve credibility issues before ruling.

Calmatters

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation urged the court to uphold the conviction, arguing that the plea was valid. In contrast, public defenders and immigration-rights groups filed briefs criticizing inconsistent California practices for informing defendants about immigration fallout from guilty pleas. Their arguments framed the decision as a corrective step toward ensuring defendants receive meaningful warnings.

Calmatters

• “Well, because if he’s my attorney and he’s telling me, ‘Sign here, initial here,’ I’m going to sign,” — Angela Hernandez, her attorney

Calmatters

• “Her decisions to seek and obtain permission from the probation department to leave the United States, to travel to Mexico, and to attempt to lawfully reenter through a port of entry support an inference that she did not ‘meaningfully understand’ the immigration consequences of her conviction,” — Justice Joshua Groban

Calmatters

• “The trial court can resolve factual and credibility issues, then make a proper ruling considering all the relevant evidence,” — Justice Carol Corrigan

Calmatters