People v. Castillo
Annotate this Case
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his 1989 conviction for possession for sale of cocaine. Defendant claimed that his defense counsel failed to advise him about the adverse immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea and, as a result, he did not understand that he was facing deportation on the basis of his conviction and plea.
The court concluded that defendant failed to establish that he is entitled to relief where counsel was not ineffective because counsel's representation did not fall below the then-contemporary objectively reasonable standard of practice. The court distinguished the facts in People v. Soriano (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1470, from the facts in this case, explaining that defendant did not enter his guilty plea based on false assurances by counsel. Furthermore, the court found no merit to defendant's assertion that it was reasonable to expect he could have pleaded to an alternative, immigration-neutral offense had counsel pursued one. Accordingly, even if counsel's advisement was insufficient, defendant's claim still failed because he has not shown prejudice. The court concluded that the trial court's finding that defendant was not credible when he testified that he had no idea of the adverse immigration consequences was not supported by the record. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court did not use an incorrect standard in denying the motion. Under the Martinez factors, the court found the evidence was neither overwhelming nor indicative that the trial court held defendant to an incorrect test.
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.