People v. Lambert CA4/3

FACTS

In 1990, defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 years old. (§ 288, subd. (a).) The court sentenced him to three years of probation on condition he serve one year in jail. In August 2012, defendant moved under section 1203.4 to withdraw his 3 guilty plea and to set aside all associated penalties and disabilities. Defendant stated he did not recall whether section 1203.4 was discussed as part of his plea bargain (Lambert I, supra, G047913), but declared he “believed” he would be entitled to relief under the statute if he successfully completed probation. His trial counsel declared that, although he did not specifically recall whether he had advised defendant of the availability of section 1203.4 relief, his custom and practice was to advise his probation-eligible clients of such relief and that it was a benefit of accepting probation. In November 2012, the court denied defendant’s motion solely on the ground the 1997 amendment to section 1203.4 applied retroactively to exclude him from relief thereunder. In Lambert I, supra, G047913, we reversed the court’s November 2012 order and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing on whether the…