Skip to content
Name: People v. Castro-Vasquez
Case #: B192721
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/26/2007

Prior to accepting a guilty or no contest plea, the trial court must advise the defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5 that as a result of the conviction, he may be subject to deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization of immigration consequences. In a motion to withdraw his plea because of failure to advise of immigration consequences, a defendant must show that it was reasonably probable he would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised. (People v. Zamudio (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 210.) The trial court used the wrong standard by ruling that appellant failed to establish prejudice because he did not demonstrate that if he had gone to trial, a different and more favorable outcome probably would have occurred. The probable outcome at trial is only a factor to consider in determining whether a defendant would have pled guilty if he had been properly advised. (People v. Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230, 253.) It was inappropriate for the court to consider this factor here as the court, on the basis of the uncontroverted declaration by appellant, had “assumed that appellant would not have accepted the plea.”