People v. Kashani CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

We will incorporate the statement of facts contained in appellant’s opening brief for background information. In ruling on Kashani’s motion, the trial court first found that Kashani’s motions were untimely. Specifically, removal proceedings were initiated against Kashani in 2012. Section 1473.7, which went into effect on January 1, 2017, states that motions be filed with “reasonable diligence.” Kashani filed his motion approximately three and a half years after the statute went into effect. The trial court also found that Kashani was aware of the immigration consequences when he entered his pleas. In so finding, the trial court cited to Kashani’s law degree and passage of the California Bar exam, the time Kashani had between the filing of the complaint and pleading guilty to research and evaluate possible consequences of his plea in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCN236630 (case No. SCN236630), the fact that Kashani’s attorney crossed out the word “may” and wrote “will” in the clause discussing deportation consequences on the change of plea form in case No. SCN236630, and the fact that even if Kashani’s attorney in that case could have worded a safer factual…