Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2026(People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894 (Patterson).) “[A] court asked to set aside a guilty plea based on mistake or ignorance of the deportation consequences is ‘properly vested with discretion to grant or to deny the motion after considering all factors necessary to bring about a just result.’ ” (Id. at p. 899.) We, in turn, review a superior court’s decision for abuse of discretion, which may occur if the decision was based on a legal error. 2026(People v. Dillard (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 .) In deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on ignorance of immigration consequences, the trial court is “ ‘vested with discretion to grant or to deny the motion after considering all factors necessary to bring about a just result.’ ” (People v. Patterson, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 899 .) In exercising this discretion, the court may consider “any [factors] that bear on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the plea.” (Ibid.) The court may also consider its own observations of the defendant, their credibility, and | 1 | 3 |
People v. Nocelotlgreen1 sentence2026(Id. at p. 894; People v. Codinha (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1047 , 1070 [same].) Legal error aside, we do not reweigh evidence or reassess a witness’s credibility; instead, we “accept the trial court’s factual findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561 , 574 (Lopez).) There is no abuse of discretion unless the court exercises its “discretion in an arbitrary, 4 capricious or patently absurd manner resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Shaw (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 492, 496 ; People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Superior Court (Giron)
green
2 sentences2017Rather, as is typically the case under *899 section 1018, a court asked to set aside a guilty plea based on mistake or ignorance of the deportation consequences is "properly vested with discretion to grant or to deny the motion after considering all factors necessary to bring about a just result." ( Giron , supra , 11 Cal.3d at p. 798 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 523 P.2d 636 .) In exercising that discretion, a trial court may take into consideration the defendant's reaction to the section 1016.5 advisement-for example, whether the defendant acknowledged understanding the advisement and whether he or 2017Rather, as is typically the case under *899 section 1018, a court asked to set aside a guilty plea based on mistake or ignorance of the deportation consequences is "properly vested with discretion to grant or to deny the motion after considering all factors necessary to bring about a just result." ( Giron , supra , 11 Cal.3d at p. 798 , 114 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 523 P.2d 636 .) In exercising that discretion, a trial court may take into consideration the defendant's reaction to the section 1016.5 advisement-for example, whether the defendant acknowledged understanding the advisement and whether he or | 2 | 1975–2017 |
People v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2026(Id. at p. 894; People v. Codinha (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1047 , 1070 [same].) Legal error aside, we do not reweigh evidence or reassess a witness’s credibility; instead, we “accept the trial court’s factual findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561 , 574 (Lopez).) There is no abuse of discretion unless the court exercises its “discretion in an arbitrary, 4 capricious or patently absurd manner resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Shaw (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 492, 496 ; People v. Nocelotl (2012) 211 Cal.App. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. RAVAUX
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Ravaux, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 918 ; see Patterson, at pp. 898-899.) We review the trial court’s decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1018 for abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Dillard
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Dillard (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 .) In deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on ignorance of immigration consequences, the trial court is “ ‘vested with discretion to grant or to deny the motion after considering all factors necessary to bring about a just result.’ ” (People v. Patterson, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 899 .) In exercising this discretion, the court may consider “any [factors] that bear on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the plea.” (Ibid.) The court may also consider its own observations of the defendant, their credibility, and | 1 | 2026–2026 |