California v. Bravo
Annotate this Case
In 1997, defendant Estaban Zarate Bravo pleaded guilty to, and was convicted on a plea bargain agreement of: a felony violation of domestic violence (count 1) and felony violation of child cruelty (count 2). Defendant was a native of Mexico and Spanish was his first language. He appeared in custody at a hearing on June 24, 1997, at which he pleaded guilty to both counts with the use of an interpreter. The immediate advantage of his plea was that defendant was to be released from custody that same day so that he could return to his construction job without being fired and could therefore support his spouse and their child. Of more immediate importance, defendant was informed by counsel and the prosecution that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would conduct a sweep of the county jail where he was being held by the next morning; being released that afternoon allowed him to avoid the ICE sweep and likely deportation. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years’ incarceration, suspended, and placed him on formal probation for 36 months on terms and conditions including 25 days’ custody, for which he was granted time served.
In 2018, defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Penal Code sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. In 2019, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contended the Court of Appeal should grant his motion to vacate or, alternatively, remand to and direct the trial court to grant the motion, specifically contending that at the time of his plea agreement, he was unaware of future immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant contended his trial attorney’s communication, coupled with the written admonition on the plea, as read to him by the interpreter, would leave any reasonable person to believe that so long as he avoided the ICE agents while incarcerated, he would not confront immigration consequences. The Court of Appeal found that “a defendant’s self-serving statement—after trial, conviction, and sentence—that with competent advice he or she would have accepted [or rejected] a proffered plea bargain, is insufficient in and of itself to sustain the defendant’s burden of proof as to prejudice, and must be corroborated independently by objective evidence.” With no such evidence in the record, the Court declined to vacate the trial court's judgment.
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.