Amended in Assembly March 26, 2015

California Legislature—2015–16 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 1343

Introduced by Assembly Member Thurmond

February 27, 2015

An act begin insert to add Sections 1016.2 and 1016.3 to the Penal Code, end insert relating to criminal procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1343, as amended, Thurmond. Criminal procedure: defense counsel.

Existing law requires the court in a noncapital case, if the defendant appears for arraignment without counsel, to inform the defendant that it is his or her right to have counsel before being arraigned and to ask the defendant if he or she desires the assistance of counsel. If the defendant desires and is unable to employ counsel, the court is required to assign counsel to defend him or her as provided. begin insert Existing law requires courts, prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by a defendant, to inform the defendant that a conviction of the offense charged end insert begin insert 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. end insert

begin delete

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that requires defense counsel in California to comply with Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356.

end delete begin insert

This bill would require defense counsel to provide accurate and affirmative advice of the potential immigration consequences of a proposed disposition and attempt to defend against those consequences. The bill would require the prosecution and defense counsel, in the interests of justice, to contemplate considering immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process. By requiring an increased level of service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

end insert begin insert

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

end insert begin insert

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

end insert

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:  begin delete no end delete begin insert yes end insert . State-mandated local program:  begin delete no end delete begin insert yes end insert .

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

begin insert

begin insert SECTION 1. end insert   

end insert

begin insert Section 1016.2 is added to the end insert begin insert Penal Code end insert begin insert , to
read: end insert

begin insert

begin insert 1016.2. end insert   

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the United
States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires
defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to
noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration
consequences of their criminal cases. California courts also have
held that defense counsel must investigate, advise regarding, and
defend against, potential adverse immigration consequences of a
proposed disposition (People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470
(1987), People v. Barocio, 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (1989), People v.
Bautista, 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (2004)).

(b) In Padilla, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned the
consideration of immigration consequences by both parties in the
plea negotiating process. The court stated that “informed
consideration of possible deportation can only benefit both the
State and noncitizen defendants during the plea-bargaining
process. By bringing deportation consequences into this process,
the defense and prosecution may well be able to reach agreements
that better satisfy the interests of both parties.”

(c) In Padilla, the United States Supreme Court found that for
noncitizens, deportation is an integral part of the penalty imposed
for criminal convictions. Deportation may result from serious
offenses or a single minor conviction. It may be by far the most
serious penalty flowing from the conviction.

(d) With an accurate understanding of immigration
consequences, many noncitizen defendants are able to plead to a
conviction and sentence that satisfy the prosecution and court, but
that have no, or fewer, adverse immigration consequences than
the original charge.

(e) Defendants who are misadvised or not advised at all of the
immigration consequences of criminal charges often suffer
irreparable damage to their current or potential lawful immigration
status, resulting in penalties such as mandatory detention,
deportation, and permanent separation from close family. In many
cases, these consequences could have been avoided had counsel
provided informed advice and defense.

(f) Once in removal proceedings, a noncitizen may be
transferred to any of over 200 immigration detention facilities
across the country. Many criminal offenses trigger mandatory
detention, so that the person may not request bond. In immigration
proceedings, there is no court-appointed right to counsel and as
a result, the majority of detained immigrants go unrepresented.
Immigration judges often lack the power to consider whether the
person should remain in the United States in light of equitable
factors such as serious hardship to United States citizen family
members, length of time living in the United States, or
rehabilitation.

(g) The immigration consequences of criminal convictions have
particularly strong impact in California. One out of every four
persons living in the state is foreign-born. One out of every two
children lives in a household headed by at least one foreign-born
person. The majority of these children are United States citizens.
It is estimated that 50,000 parents of California United States
citizen children were deported in a little over two years. Once a
person is deported, especially after a criminal conviction, it is
extremely unlikely that he or she ever is permitted to return.

(h) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify Padilla v. Kentucky
and California case law.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 2. end insert   

end insert

begin insert Section 1016.3 is added to the end insert begin insert Penal Code end insert begin insert , to read: end insert

begin insert

begin insert 1016.3. end insert   

(a) Defense counsel shall provide accurate and
affirmative advice of the potential immigration consequences of
a proposed disposition and attempt to defend against those
consequences.

(b) The prosecution and defense counsel, in the interests of
justice, shall contemplate considering immigration consequences
in the plea negotiation process in an effort to reach a just
resolution.

(c) This code section shall not be interpreted to change the
requirements of Section 1016.5, including the requirement that no
defendant shall be required to disclose his or her immigration
status to the court.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 3. end insert   

end insert begin insert

If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

end insert

begin delete

SECTION 1.  

It is the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation that requires defense counsel in California to comply
with Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356.

end delete