Legal Opinion
People v. Gontiz
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 31, 1997No. Docket Nos. C023943, C024449PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORRISON, J.
In two separate cases defendant moved to vacate his guilty pleas on the ground that when he entered them he had not been advised of all the possible immigration consequences, as required by Penal Code section 1016.5 (section 1016.5). In both cases the trial courts denied his motions. We shall reverse.
Normally a motion to vacate a plea based on misadvisement or omission of a collateral consequence requires the defendant to demonstrate that he would not have entered into the plea had he known of the consequence. (People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1022-1023 [1…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- People v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Anderson v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- People v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- In Re TartarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- People v. SorianoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Daniel Magana-Pizano v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)California Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. SerranoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. Hyung Joon KimCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. TotariCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.