Greg Hill & Associates Home
Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
1998 Drug Sales Conviction Vacated, 1473.7(a), Downtown L.A.
More than twenty-five years ago, in 1998, our client, then twenty-two years old, entered a no contest plea to violating Health & Safety Code § 11360(a), possession of marijuana for sale. He had been monitored and then was caught by an undercover LAPD officer.
Our client was not a U.S. citizen. He came to the United States with his parents when he was three months old. He held a green card (permanent resident) at the time of his plea.
After entering his plea, he was placed on three years of formal probation with an obligation to perform 180 days of Cal Trans or PACE (graffiti removal), as well as payment of a lab fee and $200 restitution fee.
As is not uncommon, our client’s goal in resolving the case was to avoid time in jail. Our client wanted this to maintain his two jobs that he was working at the time.
What was uncommon in this case was defense counsel for our client, a well-respected attorney, astutely recognized the adverse immigration consequences of such a plea and actively communicated this in writing and orally with the People. However, he inexplicably did not discuss this with our client, so he did not know there were any adverse immigration consequences from his plea.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court would not tackle this thorny issue for more than another decade when it issued its ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, mandating that criminal defense counsel must advise defendant of the immigration consequences of the charges faced.
In addition, the Deputy District Attorney (DDA) taking the plea did not properly advise our client of the immigration consequences because he told our client, in taking his plea, that that “this plea could result in your deportation, denial of naturalization, or denial of readmission into the United States. It’s very likely you will be deported.”
Since our client was a permanent resident with a “Green Card,” he regarded the immigration warning as only applying to those who were not in the United States legally. More importantly, he followed the advice of his well-respected to enter the no contest plea, trusting his experience and expertise that he knew what was best for him.
Moreover, he had been in court and observed the DDA give a similar admonition to every person entering a plea, even those who appeared to be obvious U.S. citizens. Our client regarded the admonition “script” the DDA read as mandatory for the DDA to read to each defendant entering a plea, regardless of whether it applied, and that it often did not apply to each defendant.
In 2006, however, our client went to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office to renew his green card. He was then arrested and held until his mom posted an immigration bond while an immigration case to deport him, based on the conviction in this case, proceeded. The matter resolved with an order to deport our client.
In 2022, our client spoke to an immigration attorney about modifying the deportation order and renewing his permanent resident card to become a U.S. citizen. However, due to this conviction and the deportation order, the attorney told him that his application would be denied.
Our client then explained to his immigration attorney that before entering his “no contest” plea in this case, he had not discussed any immigration consequences of his plea or any immigration-neutral alternative resolutions. He was unaware that there were any adverse immigration consequences from the plea.
His immigration attorney then suggested he discuss a motion to vacate this conviction.
The client hired an attorney, who charged an exorbitant fee, but the motion to vacate was denied.
Our client then came to Greg Hill & Associates and asked what could be done. He explained his situation with Greg Hill and Greg explained that the motion to vacate could be brought again because the denial was “without prejudice.”
Our office then prepared the motion with considerably more facts for the judge, including a declaration from our client’s attorney when he entered his plea, as well as a discussion of the admonition being improper.
The DDA handling the motion was served the motion and called up Greg. Greg had known her from prior cases. She agreed to stipulate to vacate the conviction, but she offered to then allow our client to plea to an immigration-neutral misdemeanor. Greg thanked her and explained this good news to the client.
Our client was not a U.S. citizen. He came to the United States with his parents when he was three months old. He held a green card (permanent resident) at the time of his plea.
After entering his plea, he was placed on three years of formal probation with an obligation to perform 180 days of Cal Trans or PACE (graffiti removal), as well as payment of a lab fee and $200 restitution fee.
As is not uncommon, our client’s goal in resolving the case was to avoid time in jail. Our client wanted this to maintain his two jobs that he was working at the time.
What was uncommon in this case was defense counsel for our client, a well-respected attorney, astutely recognized the adverse immigration consequences of such a plea and actively communicated this in writing and orally with the People. However, he inexplicably did not discuss this with our client, so he did not know there were any adverse immigration consequences from his plea.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court would not tackle this thorny issue for more than another decade when it issued its ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, mandating that criminal defense counsel must advise defendant of the immigration consequences of the charges faced.
In addition, the Deputy District Attorney (DDA) taking the plea did not properly advise our client of the immigration consequences because he told our client, in taking his plea, that that “this plea could result in your deportation, denial of naturalization, or denial of readmission into the United States. It’s very likely you will be deported.”
Since our client was a permanent resident with a “Green Card,” he regarded the immigration warning as only applying to those who were not in the United States legally. More importantly, he followed the advice of his well-respected to enter the no contest plea, trusting his experience and expertise that he knew what was best for him.
Moreover, he had been in court and observed the DDA give a similar admonition to every person entering a plea, even those who appeared to be obvious U.S. citizens. Our client regarded the admonition “script” the DDA read as mandatory for the DDA to read to each defendant entering a plea, regardless of whether it applied, and that it often did not apply to each defendant.
In 2006, however, our client went to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office to renew his green card. He was then arrested and held until his mom posted an immigration bond while an immigration case to deport him, based on the conviction in this case, proceeded. The matter resolved with an order to deport our client.
In 2022, our client spoke to an immigration attorney about modifying the deportation order and renewing his permanent resident card to become a U.S. citizen. However, due to this conviction and the deportation order, the attorney told him that his application would be denied.
Our client then explained to his immigration attorney that before entering his “no contest” plea in this case, he had not discussed any immigration consequences of his plea or any immigration-neutral alternative resolutions. He was unaware that there were any adverse immigration consequences from the plea.
His immigration attorney then suggested he discuss a motion to vacate this conviction.
The client hired an attorney, who charged an exorbitant fee, but the motion to vacate was denied.
Our client then came to Greg Hill & Associates and asked what could be done. He explained his situation with Greg Hill and Greg explained that the motion to vacate could be brought again because the denial was “without prejudice.”
Our office then prepared the motion with considerably more facts for the judge, including a declaration from our client’s attorney when he entered his plea, as well as a discussion of the admonition being improper.
The DDA handling the motion was served the motion and called up Greg. Greg had known her from prior cases. She agreed to stipulate to vacate the conviction, but she offered to then allow our client to plea to an immigration-neutral misdemeanor. Greg thanked her and explained this good news to the client.
We then appeared in court and the judge vacated the conviction under both Penal Code §§ 1473.7(a)(1) and 1016.5(a)(1). Our client then entered a plea to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 370 as a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code § 372.5(c). He was very happy to now be able to renew his green card without any problems and perhaps one day become a U.S. citizen.
