BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2011-2012 Regular Session B 1 4 2 AB 142 (Fuentes) As Introduced: January 13, 2011 Hearing date: June 7, 2011 Code of Civil Procedure; Penal Code MK:dl CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: PLEAS HISTORY Source: Coalition for Human Immigrants' Rights of Los Angeles Prior Legislation: AB 15 (Fuentes) - Vetoed 2010 AB 806 (Fuentes) - Vetoed 2009 Support: Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Asian Law Caucus; California Public Defenders Association; American Civil Liberties Union of California; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles Opposition: California District Attorneys Association Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 51 - Noes 19 KEY ISSUE SHOULD THE LAW PROVIDE THAT WHEN A PERSON WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN ACCEPTS A PLEA THE COURT SHALL ADVISE THE PERSON THAT IF HE OR SHE IS DEPORTED AND RETURNS TO THE UNITED STATES, HE OR SHE COULD BE CHARGED WITH A SEPARATE FEDERAL OFFENSE FOR ILLEGAL REENTRY? (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 2 PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to provide for an additional advisement when a non-citizen pleads guilty so that the person is aware that if he or she is deported and returns to the United States, he or she could be charged with a separate federal offense. Existing law states that any "alien" who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (8 United States Code Section 1325(a).) Existing law provides that any "alien" who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry) or twice the amount specified in the case of an "alien" who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (8 United States Code Section 1325(b).) Existing law states that any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (8 United States Code Section 1325(c).) Existing law provides that any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 3 any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than five years. (8 United States Code Section 1325(d).) Existing law provides that any "alien" who has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless prior to his re-embarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has expressly consented to such "alien's" reapplying for admission; or with respect to an "alien" previously denied admission and removed, unless such "alien" shall establish that he was not required to obtain such advance consent under this or any prior Act, shall be fined, or imprisoned not more than two years or both. (8 United States Code Section 1326(a).) Existing law states that notwithstanding the provisions for criminal penalties for reentry of excluded "aliens," in the case of any "alien" described in whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (8 United States Code Section 1326(b).) Existing law requires, prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any offense punishable as a crime under state law, the court shall administer the following advisement on the record to the defendant: "Ýi]f you are not a citizen, you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense for which you have been charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 4 (Penal Code § 1016.5 (a).) Existing law states that upon request, the court shall allow the defendant additional time to consider the appropriateness of the plea in light of the advisement as described in this section. (Penal Code § 1016.5 (b).) Existing law provides if the court fails to advise the defendant as required by this section and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on defendant's motion, shall vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. (Penal Code § 1016.5 (b).) Existing law states that absent a record that the court provided the advisement required by this section, the defendant shall be presumed not to have received the required advisement. (Penal Code § 1016.5 (b).) This bill provides that for any plea accepted after January 1, 2012 the court shall also give the following advisement: Further, if you are deported from the United States and return illegally, you could be charged with a separate federal offense for illegal reentry into the United States. This bill contains the following legislative findings and declarations: In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 130 S.Ct. 1473, the United States Supreme Court highlighted the increased significance of immigration consequences that are often inevitable with the making of a guilty or nolo contendere plea. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky provides evidence of the increasing importance of a defendant's full knowledge of all immigration (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 5 consequences of a guilty or nolo contendere plea in weighing whether to enter such a plea. Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, informed consideration of immigration consequences can only benefit both the state and noncitizen defendants during the plea-bargaining process. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation. As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts over California's prisons has intensified. On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California established a Receivership to take control of the delivery of medical services to all California state prisoners confined by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006, plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 6 circumstances.In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early 2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: Under existing law, judges are required to advise criminal defendants of potential immigration consequences of entering a guilty/no-contest plea before the plea can be accepted. The purpose of this requirement is to make sure that the plea is knowing and voluntary and fully informed. The problem is that the vast majority of defendants who receive this advisement have no idea that returning to the country after deportation is as serious as it is and choose to enter guilty pleas unfairly unaware of the often times devastating consequences of the plea. California has recognized the importance and appropriateness of ensuring that criminal defendants are advised that they can be deported if they plead guilty. Defendants should also understand that pleading guilty could put them in a situation where they can never return to the United States (and presumably their family and friends). This is necessary for a plea to be truly knowing and voluntary. In March of 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla the Court highlighted (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 7 the importance of full knowledge of the immigration consequences associated with entering guilty and no contest pleas. The Court reasoned that both the defendant AND the State are better served when the defendant is fully advised of the immigration consequences of the plea. The Court explained that immigration consequences are different from other consequences, as they in effect result in the permanent "exile" of the defendant from this country. In light of the dramatic changes in the immigration laws in the last several decades, the Court recognized that immigration consequences of guilty and no contest pleas are in a category of their own and warrant different treatment than other consequences. 2. Additional Advisement Existing law already requires the court, at the time of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to advise the defendant that if he or she is not a citizen of the United States, his or her plea could subject him or her to deportation. As noted in the author's statement the US Supreme Court has recently emphasized the importance of a noncitizen defendant knowing the immigration consequences of a plea because deportation is a part of the penalty that is imposed on such a defendant upon conviction. (See Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 130 S. Ct. 1473 at 1480.) In addition to the existing advisement, this bill would require the court to give the person an additional advisement stating that if he or she is deported from the United States and reenters, he or she could face harsh penalties under federal law. The Asian Law Caucus supports the additional advisement in this bill stating: The purpose of this requirement is to make sure that the plea is knowing and voluntary and fully informed. The problem is that the vast majority of defendants (More) AB 142 (Fuentes) Page 8 who receive this advisement have no idea that returning to the country after deportation is as serious as it is and choose to enter guilty pleas unfairly unaware of the often times devastating consequences of the plea. 3. Opposition The California District Attorneys oppose this bill, as they have the prior legislation. In their opposition they state: (More) It is not clear that it should be the duty of the court to advise a defendant that if he or she breaks the law, he or she could be charged with a crime. Additionally, we are concerned about expanding the existing advisement because of the severity of the remedy for the failure to deliver the advisement. We are aware of reports of defendants returning to court years after a guilty plea and after they have completed their punishment to assert that they did not receive the advisement. This results in a prosecutor having to spend valuable time and resources trying to track down information that may or may not be in a court file that may or may not exist. Of course, this is the result only if the court decides not to vacate the guilty plea and dismiss the case. Unfortunately, this bill carries the potential to exacerbate this growing problem. ************** (More)