CAL POST CON " VEHICLES " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " TRIAL COURT NEED NOT HAVE INFORMED DEFENDANT THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS MIGHT USE HIS PLEA AGAINST HIM IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION
People v. Aguirre, 199 Cal.App.4th 525, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 (2d Dist. Sept. 26, 2011) (affirming trial courts denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea, made at sentence, since plea was not involuntary because trial court was not obligated to inform defendant that federal prosecutors might use his plea against him in a federal prosecution, since that was not a direct consequence of the plea).

Note: The case reveals that the defendant was not well-served by his counsel or the court. First, his attorney apparently argued that the defendants lack of knowledge of the federal prosecution rendered the plea involuntary. There is no harm in making this argument, but it is not necessary to go so far to establish a right to withdraw a plea before sentence. Only good cause need be shown, Penal Code 1018, and the motion made so timely should be liberally granted. See People v. Superior Court (Giron) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 793, 114 Cal.Rptr. 596 (defendants lack of knowledge of the immigration consequences constituted good cause to withdraw plea under Penal Code 1018). Counsel should have made this additional argument. The court should have been aware, as well, of the proper standard for granting a motion to withdraw a plea, and granted it under Giron. Counsels argument that the court should have given this information to the defendant is also miscast, since there is no reason to believe that the court was aware of the impending federal prosecution. The conviction in this case should have been reversed, for defense counsels failure to raise the proper ground for granting the motion, and the courts error in failing to recognize that the plea should have been withdrawn nonetheless. This case may yet be salvaged, if the defendant files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise the proper ground, assuming the client is still in custody. If granted, this reversal might conceivably impact the validity of the federal conviction, if one has been reached, depending on the use put to the state conviction in the federal prosecution.