proceedings absent error in California

2021(Id. at pp. 1010–1011; see People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 565 (Martinez) [defendant may show prejudice by “convinc[ing] the court [that he] would have chosen to lose the benefits of the plea bargain despite the possibility or probability deportation would nonetheless follow”]; see Lee v. U.S. (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1965 [a defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial, but for counsel’s errors].) III.

2021(Id. at pp. 1010–1011; see People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 565 (Martinez) [defendant may show prejudice by “convinc[ing] the court [that he] would have chosen to lose the benefits of the plea bargain despite the possibility or probability deportation would nonetheless follow”]; see Lee v. U.S. (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1965 [a defendant can show prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial, but for counsel’s errors].) III.

2019That is, the record in Camacho established " defendant's own error in ... not knowing that his plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States." ( Id. at p. 1009, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , italics added.) As far as prejudice, Camacho held: "Because the errors need not amount to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it follows that courts are not limited to the Strickland test of prejudice, ... [a] reasonable probability of a different outcome in the original proceedings absent the error." ( Camacho, supra , 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009 , 244 Cal.

2019That is, the record in Camacho established " defendant's own error in ... not knowing that his plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States." ( Id. at p. 1009, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 , italics added.) As far as prejudice, Camacho held: "Because the errors need not amount to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it follows that courts are not limited to the Strickland test of prejudice, ... [a] reasonable probability of a different outcome in the original proceedings absent the error." ( Camacho, supra , 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009 , 244 Cal.

2023Rombeau Has Demonstrated Prejudice In addition to showing an error that “damaged his ‘ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of [his] plea of . . . nolo contendere,’ ” a defendant must also show the error “to be prejudicial.” (People v. Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009 .) This prejudice test differs from the one for ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires a “reasonable probability of a different outcome in the original proceedings absent the error.” (Ibid.) Instead, to establish prejudi

2022Prejudicial error under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) is “not limited to the Strickland[2 ] test of prejudice, whether there was reasonable probability of a different 2 Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ]. 8 outcome in the original proceedings absent the error.” (People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1009 .) Instead, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of contemporaneous evidence that he would not have entered the plea and would have risked going to trial had he known about the adverse immigration consequences.

2022(Id. at pp. 1011-1012; People v. DeJesus, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 1133 .) Here, the contemporaneous evidence in the record at the time of defendant’s plea reveals that his priority was to avoid jail time to maintain his employment.

2021(Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1007 ; City of Redlands v. Sorensen (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 202, 211 .) Because the scope of section 1473.7 is not restricted to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, “it follows that courts are not limited to the Strickland test of prejudice, whether there was reasonable probability of a different outcome in the original proceedings absent the error.” ( Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1009-1010.) To show prejudice, a person must show “by a preponderance of evidence that he would never have entered the plea if he had known that it would render h

2023(People v. Soto (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 602 , 610; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 324.) Therefore, “ ‘reversal is required when there exists “at least such an equal balance of reasonable probabilities as to leave the court in serious doubt as to whether the error affected the result.” ’ ” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, at p. 324, quoting People v. Mar (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 1225 ; see People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 .) “[T]he inquiry under section 1473.7 requires consideration of the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ which necessarily involves case-by-case examinat

2023(People v. Soto (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 602 , 610; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 324.) Therefore, “ ‘reversal is required when there exists “at least such an equal balance of reasonable probabilities as to leave the court in serious doubt as to whether the error affected the result.” ’ ” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, at p. 324, quoting People v. Mar (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 1225 ; see People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 .) “[T]he inquiry under section 1473.7 requires consideration of the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ which necessarily involves case-by-case examinat

2023Rombeau Has Demonstrated Prejudice In addition to showing an error that “damaged his ‘ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of [his] plea of . . . nolo contendere,’ ” a defendant must also show the error “to be prejudicial.” (People v. Camacho, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009 .) This prejudice test differs from the one for ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires a “reasonable probability of a different outcome in the original proceedings absent the error.” (Ibid.) Instead, to establish prejudi

2023(People v. Soto (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 602 , 610; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 324.) Therefore, “ ‘reversal is required when there exists “at least such an equal balance of reasonable probabilities as to leave the court in serious doubt as to whether the error affected the result.” ’ ” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, at p. 324, quoting People v. Mar (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 1225 ; see People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 .) “[T]he inquiry under section 1473.7 requires consideration of the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ which necessarily involves case-by-case examinat

2021(See Jae Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. __ [ 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1967 ] (Lee) [defendant “adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation”]; see also People v. Martinez, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 567 [“To establish prejudice, defendant must show that he would not have entered into the 15 We note that the amendment to section 1473.7 also made various other changes to the statute, such as “substantially enlarg[ing] the time periods in which to bring these motions. (§ 1473.7, subd. (e)(1).)” (Ruiz, supr

2021(See Jae Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. __ [ 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1967 ] (Lee) [defendant “adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea had he known that it would lead to mandatory deportation”]; see also People v. Martinez, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 567 [“To establish prejudice, defendant must show that he would not have entered into the 15 We note that the amendment to section 1473.7 also made various other changes to the statute, such as “substantially enlarg[ing] the time periods in which to bring these motions. (§ 1473.7, subd. (e)(1).)” (Ruiz, supr