Tooby's California Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

(B)

Improper Advisement.  The court’s omission of even one of the three required warnings is sufficient to require reversal, if (a) the omitted danger actually threatens the defendant, and (b) there is a reasonable probability of a different result if the proper warning had been given, causing the defendant had investigated the exact immigration consequences of the case.[334]  The exact words of the statute need not be used so long as the court warns the defendant of each of the three damaging potential immigration consequences specified in the statute.[335]

[334]    People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 999 P.2d 686, implicitly overruling People v. Valenciano (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 604, 211 Cal.Rptr. 651.

[335] People v. Gutierrez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 169 (substantial compliance with Penal Code § 1016.5 is sufficient to uphold a plea so long as the defendant is specifically advised of all three separate immigration consequences of his plea: the possible effect on deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, and denial of naturalization).