California v. Mejia
Annotate this CaseIn 2016, the California Legislature created a new law, which became effective in January 2017, allowing a person who was no longer in custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction because: “The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.” In 1994, defendant Fernando Mejia pleaded guilty to three drug crimes; as a result, he faced mandatory deportation. In 2017, Mejia filed a Penal Code section 1473.7 motion; the trial court denied the motion, finding Mejia did not prove an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim. In 2018, Mejia timely appealed. The Attorney General conceded the 2019 amendment to section 1473.7 was retroactive. The Court of Appeal held that to establish a “prejudicial error” under section 1473.7, a person need only show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) he did not “meaningfully understand” or “knowingly accept” the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of the plea; and (2) had he understood the consequences, it is reasonably probable he would have instead attempted to “defend against” the charges. The Court found Mejia made such a showing. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order denying Mejia’s section 1473.7 motion. On remand, the Court directed the trial court to allow Mejia to withdraw his 1994 guilty pleas.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.