Chien

People v. Chien

Good Law
159 Cal. App. 4th 1283·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 211·72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 448
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2008H031010California2,664 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

On August 13, 1998, defendant Rocky Chien pleaded no contest to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). In October 2006, defendant moved to vacate his conviction and set aside his plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5 on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant argued that his counsel failed to apprise him of, and to defend against, the adverse immigration consequences of his conviction. Possession for sale of a controlled substance is a drug trafficking offense under federal immigration law that triggers mandatory deportation. (See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(a)(43)(B), 1229b(a)(3).) Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate the conviction.

We conclude that section 1016.5 allows a court to vacate a conviction only if the trial court has failed to advise the defendant of potential adverse immigration consequences at the time of the plea. The statutory motion cannot be used to assert defense counsel’s failure to provide adequate representation relating to immigration consequences. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.