People v. Rader, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___, 2014 WL 3615811 (2d Dist. Jul. 23, 2014) (defendant may not be convicted of both counts 2 and 3 for the same petty theft on a single occasion from a restaurant, for using two counterfeit bills at the same time, since both counts involve a single offense"the petty theft from the restaurant: When a single theft occurs at the same time as part of one transaction, only one conviction may be returned.); citing People v. Bouzas, 53 Cal.3d 467, 469, 279 Cal.Rptr. 847, 807 P.2d 1076; People v. Witcher, 41 Cal.App.4th 223, 233, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 421; People v.

People v. Speight, 227 Cal.App.4th 1229, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 454 (4th Dist. Jul. 11, 2014) (reversing sentence where defense counsel's performance was deficient regarding sentencing, where counsels failure to raise Eighth Amendment objection to length of defendant's sentence was ineffective assistance of counsel and defendant was prejudiced by this error).

People v. Smith, 227 Cal.App.4th 717, 721, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 103 (1st Dist. June 30, 2014) (We find section 1203.4, subdivision (b) does not prohibit dismissal of defendant's convictions for violating sections 288a, subdivision (b)(2) and 289, subdivision (i) [oral copulation with a person under the age of 16 by a person over the age of 21 and sexual penetration of a person under age 16 by a person over age 21], and we reverse and remand for further proceedings on those convictions.)

See Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Practice Advisory, Great Ninth Circuit Case on Divisible Statutes: California Burglary Never Is Attempted Theft. In Rendon v. Holder the Ninth Circuit clarified when a statute is truly divisible under the categorical approach, and held that California burglary (Penal Code 459) never constitutes the aggravated felony attempted theft. This holding also means that California burglary never is a crime involving moral turpitude, under the categorical approach.

Matter of CCI, 26 I&N Dec. 375 (BIA 2014) (reopening of removal proceedings for a de novo hearing to consider termination of an aliens deferral of removal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1208.17(d)(1), is warranted where the Government presents evidence that was not considered at the previous hearing relevant to the possibility that the alien will be tortured in the country to which removal has been deferred).
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3810.pdf

Torres v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 4085865 (2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2014) (New York conviction of third-degree attempted arson, in violation of New York Penal Law 110, 150.10, constitutes an aggravated felony arson offense, despite lacking a federal jurisdictional element: Because we conclude that the statute is ambiguous, we owe deference to the BIA's interpretation unless it is unreasonable. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842"43; Rotimi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir.2009).); accord, Spacek v. Holder, 688 F.3d 536 (8th Cir.2012) (interpreting 8 U.S.C.

Syblis v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 4056557 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2014) (BIA acknowledged that Va.Code Ann. 54.1"3466 punished drug paraphernalia offenses related to substances not included within the CSA, such as those recognized by the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary).

Commonwealth v. DeJesus, ___ Mass. ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ 2014 Mass. LEXIS 389, *14 & n.7 (Mass. S.Jud.Ct. 2014) (counsel rendered prejudicial ineffective assistance, despite having told defendant that deportation was a possibility: Such advice does not convey what was the case here: that all of the conditions necessary for removal would be met by the defendant's guilty plea, and that, under Federal law, there would be virtually no avenue for discretionary relief once the defendant pleaded guilty and that fact came to the attention of Federal authorities.

The court can abuse its discretion in denying a motion under Penal Code 1018 to withdraw a plea in a number of ways:

(1) The courts have emphasized that the discretion to deny a motion under
Penal Code 1018 is less broad than in other contexts, because this relief must be
liberally granted. Ibid. If the trial court failed to acknowledge or apply this presumption,
it applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to grant the motion. A court
abuses its discretion by failing to employ the correct legal standard.

Arapahoe County, Colorado, agreed to pay $30,000 to Claudia Valdez who was illegally held by the county jail for three days on an ICE detainer in 2012. See ACLU website, http://aclu-co.org/colorado-sheriff-pay-30k-woman-held-immigration-detai....
Thanks to Hans Meyer, Esq