People v. Diaz
Annotate this CaseThe Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to vacate his 1989 conviction by no contest plea to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), on the basis that he did not understand the immigration consequences of the plea. The court agreed with the trial court's findings that defendant's declarations were self-serving and not credible. In this case, the evidence does not support defendant's assertions that his attorney did not inquire about his immigration status or advise him of the adverse consequences of his plea, or that defendant himself did not believe that the District Attorney's advisement applied to him. Furthermore, defendant knew he had temporary resident status that would soon expire and an upcoming appointment to obtain permanent resident status that he would necessarily miss if incarcerated. The court also concluded that defendant has not established that it is reasonably probable that he would not have pleaded no contest to robbery with use of a deadly weapon if he was certain that it was a deportable offense.
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.