People v. Lopez, 240 Cal. App. 4th 436, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585, 599 (2015), as modified on denial of reh'g (Sept. 30, 2015) (sufficiency of the evidence affirmance of California conviction of stalking, in violation of Penal Code 646.9(g), covering the elements of the offense, where evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant made a true threat or that he intended to instill fear in the victim).

The truth about IAC

So what happens to trial counsel after an appellate court makes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel following a mistake counsel made at trial? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Some attorneys are reluctant to speak with appellate counsel about trial decisions based on a fear that an IAC finding might result in some kind of a sanction from the state bar. But this fear is unfounded as there is absolutely no consequence to trial counsel who made a mistake in defending or in preparing to defend a criminal defendant.

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2251 (2015), strongly supports the argument that 18 U.S.C. 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague. The question remains, however, whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (as distinct from a federal court) has authority to find 16(b) to be unconstitutionally vague.

When court probation is granted in a felony case, that ruling automatically converts the felony to a misdemeanor. Penal Code 1203(a). When a conditional sentence is granted on a wobbler, the wobbler becomes a misdemeanor by operation of law. People v. Glee (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 99, 105-106, People v. Taylor (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 433, 437. A grant of informal or summary probation is a "conditional sentence." (Pen. Code, 1203(a). (citations omitted).

California courts have held it proper to grant post-conviction relief under Penal Code 17(b), reducing a felony to a misdemeanor, after an expungement has been granted under Penal Code 1203.4(a). In these cases, the essence of the rulings is that an expungement under 1203.4 does not wipe-out or expunge all of the disabilities flowing from the conviction. Therefore, the residual part of the conviction, that is the parts that remain after the expungement, can be reduced by the court in the interests of justice. Meyer v. Superior Court (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 133, 139-140, 55 Cal.Rptr. 350.

Assembly Bill No. 1352 (AB 1352) added Penal Code 1203.43 to provide a way to vacate minor California drug convictions entered as part of the Deferred Entry of Judgment program. Existing law allows a defendant who meets certain requirements, such as not having a prior conviction for a controlled substances offense, to avoid having his or her arrest for possession of a controlled substance be the basis for denial of any employment, benefit, license, or certificate.

United States v. Myers, 804 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2015), amended Oct. 28, 2015 (affirming federal conviction, in which the defendant and government reached a plea deal during a settlement conference conducted by a magistrate judge, even though United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) makes clear that Fed. R. Crim. P.

Quijada-Aguilar v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 5103038 (9th Cir. Sept. 1, 2015) (California conviction for voluntary manslaughter, under Penal Code 192(a), did not qualify as a particularly serious crime that would render noncitizen ineligible for withholding of removal, since it did not constitute an aggravated felony crime of violence, because it encompassed reckless conduct).

California Assembly Bill 899, which Brown signed into law on Friday, Sept. 4, 2015, mandates that records for those in the juvenile justice system remain confidential regardless of the juveniles immigration status, and prohibits the disclosure and dissemination of juvenile information to federal officials unless a juvenile court grants permission.

Meza v. State, 359 P.3d 592 (Utah S.Ct., Sept. 9, 2015) (while Utah Post-Conviction Remedy Act is not available to allow immigrant defendant to attack a plea in abeyance, since defendant was never convicted; defendant can make motion to withdraw plea, under Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), on ground he was told that after entering no contest plea in abeyance, and completing sentence successfully, he would have no conviction, where immigration authorities continued to recognize possession of marijuana conviction as causing immigration damage anyway).