Justia Lawyer Rating
Best Attorneys of America
Super Lawyers
Superior DUI Attorney 2017
10 Best Law Firms
Top One Percent 2017
The National Trial Lawyers
Best of Thervo 2017
10 Best Law Firms
Criminal Defense Attorneys

Motions to Vacate Case Results

The following case summaries exemplify our results in asking a judge to vacate a plea, judgment or conviction under any of the three most common methods (Penal Code §§ 1018, 1203.43 or 1437.7).

It should be understood that a motion to vacate a judgment under Penal Code § 1018 was (and continues to be) a generally disfavored motion by judges.  Judges are apt to strictly enforce the six-month deadline for filing such a motion after the plea or conviction was entered, despite case law which suggests the deadline should be loosely applied.  See People v. Schwartz (1927) 201 Cal. 309, at 314 (a post-judgment motion to change a plea must be "seasonably made.”).

Nonetheless, there were countless motions to vacate a judgment that were only filed once defendant faced immigration consequences and, when we filed such motions, many were denied.

Indeed, many judges were concerned that granting such motions would “open the floodgates” of such motions, rendering our courts to a powerless position regarded with little respect.  Moreover, many of the motions were filed years, if not decades, after the conviction “caught up” with defendant, which would not even fall within the “seasonably made” loose standard recommended by Schwartz, supra.

In response to this often-unforgiving stance, prosecutors often agreed to modify the terms of probation if our client was still on probation, or would stipulate to a new disposition, making the judge feel obligated to further the agreement with a new judgement, often that still involved a conviction, but on more immigration-friendly terms.

image descriptionTorrance Superior Courthouse

Two new laws, however, dramatically eased this difficulty.  In 2016, Penal Code § 1203.43 was passed that permitted withdrawal of pleas in certain DEJ (delayed entry of plea) cases wherein simply wrong immigration advice was relied upon, often from a public defender, a private defense attorney, a prosecutor or even a judge.

One year later, on January 1, 2017, Penal Code § 1473.7 came into effect, which permits one facing immigration consequences in the future (the law was amended in 2019 to ease the standard so as to not require defendant to be facing a pending immigration case) to withdraw a plea without needing to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, or IAC (previously, the judge had to find IAC to grant relief under 1473.7). 

This far more lenient standard seeks to permit those facing deportation (or other adverse immigration consequences) to withdraw their plea upon a showing that defendant was not a U.S. citizen, that defendant entered a plea without counsel properly warning him or her of the immigration consequences of such a plea and that defendant now faces deportation or the conviction creates grounds for deportation.  Defendant must state that had he or she known of the immigration consequences at the time, he or she would have not entered into such a plea and would have instead demanded a trial or a plea bargain to other charges, even if such a plea meant time in custody but without immigration consequences.

We have found that judge and prosecutor resent this lenient standard because it, for all practical purposes, allowed many defendants probation and no custody by pleading to a charge with immigration consequences, but now being able to vacate the plea merely by claiming he or she would not have entered such a plea if properly advised of the immigration dangers.

This skepticism by judges and prosecutors is so because most non-citizens are anxious or fearful of going to jail and missing work.  Most also have a fear of jails that is high, especially if they do not have proficiency in English or have an idea that jail is like prison is portrayed in movies with gangs and violent guards.  This indeed may be how jail or prison truly is in defendant’s birthplace.

If you want to read about our motion to vacate cases, please click on the case summaries below to read a detailed description of each case.
  1. Compton, Withdrawal of Plea from 2004, Deportation Averted
  2. Client with Immigration Issues, Five 1473.7 Motions Granted
  3. Motion to Vacate Judgement, Penal Code § 1473.7, Long Beach
  4. Inglewood, Felony Possession of Cocaine, PC 1203.43 Applied
  5. San Fernando, Veteran, Two Years of Prison Set Aside
  6. Motion to Vacate Conviction under PC 1473.7, West Covina
  7. Motion to Vacate 273.5 Plea from 6 Years Earlier, Torrance
  8. 1473.7 Motion to Vacate 243(e)(1) Conviction, Bellflower
  9. Norwalk, Vacate Plea to Grand Theft under P. C. § 1473.7
  10. Motion to Vacate Conviction (PC § 1473.7), Airport Court
  11. Torrance, 2001 Grand Theft Conviction Vacated, 1473.7
  12. Felony Conviction Vacated under 1437.7, Airport Courthouse
  13. Motion to Vacate Two Convictions, Two Cases, Airport Court
  14. Torrance, Motion to Vacate 1998 12020(a) Conviction Granted
  15. Motion to Vacate Granted on PC 243(e)(1), Airport Court
  16. El Monte Court, Motion to Vacate 2005 Conviction Granted
  17. Fullerton, Motion to Vacate Conviction for 273.5 Granted
  18. Santa Maria, 273.5(a), Motion to Vacate, Penal Code 1473.7
  19. Penal Code § 1473.7 Motion Granted, Van Nuys, Elder Abuse
  20. Fullerton Court Drug Convictions, Motion to Vacate Granted
  21. Newport Beach, Motion to Vacate 20 Convictions Granted
  22. Orange County, Jury Verdict, 1473.7 Motion to Vacate Denied
  23. Long Beach, Motion to Vacate for New Facts, 1473.7(a)(2)
  24. Downey, Motion to Vacate (P.C. § 1473.7(a)(2)) Granted
  25. Torrance 1473.7 Motion Denied, Client Not Credible to Judge
  26. West Covina, Motion to Vacate under PC 1473.7(a)(1) Granted
  27. Motion to Vacate Conviction under 1473.7 Granted, Torrance
  28. Real Estate Fraud, 1473.7(a)(1) Motion to Vacate Granted
  29. Santa Ana, Motion to Vacate Conviction for VC 23103 Granted
  30. Airport Courthouse, Criminal Threats, 1473.7(a)(1) Motion
  31. Downey, Motion to Vacate 1998 273.5(a) Misdemeanor Granted
  32. Glendale Courthouse, Motion to Vacate Conviction Granted
  33. Riverside Sex Case, Motion to Vacate under AB 1259 Denied
  34. Santa Ana Courthouse, Two Grand Theft Convictions Vacated
  35. Irvine, Multiple Convictions for Grand Theft Vacated
  36. Motion to Vacate Granted for Robbery (PC 211) Conviction
  37. Torrance, Felony Possession Conviction (11377(a)) Vacated
  38. Santa Ana, 2007 Misdemeanor 273.5(a) Conviction Vacated
  39. Client From Pakistan, Arson Conviction Vacated 1473.7
  40. Motion to Vacate Conviction, Downey, Petty Theft, 484(a)
  41. Torrance Motion to Vacate, Two 211’s from 1989, 236 Instead
  42. Van Nuys Motion to Vacate 1994 Theft Convictions Granted
  43. Motion to Vacate Granted, 2004 Conviction Orange County
  44. Motion to Vacate (PC § 1473.7(a)(1)) Granted, Compton
  45. Prostitution Conviction Vacated under P.C. § 1473.7(a)(1)
Client Reviews
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona