Many people who are not U.S. citizens pleaded guilty years ago after initialing an immigration warning on a plea form. In August 2026, the California Supreme Court made one thing clear. A signed form does not, by itself, prove that the person understood how the plea would affect their immigration status.
The Ruling in Plain Terms
On August 13, 2026, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Hernandez (S282186). The court held that a judge ruling on a motion under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), “should consider the totality of the circumstances and focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding.”
The court added that proof the person received the standard immigration warning “is relevant, but not dispositive.” In other words, the warning matters, but it does not automatically defeat the motion.
What Penal Code Section 1473.7 Allows
Section 1473.7 lets a person who is “no longer in criminal custody” file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. One ground is that the conviction is legally invalid “due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.”
A few key points from the statute:
- The person must prove the grounds by a preponderance of the evidence. This means more likely true than not.
- The person must also show that the conviction is causing, or could cause, removal or the denial of an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization.
- A finding of legal invalidity “may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
- If the court grants the motion in a plea case, the court must allow the person to withdraw the plea.
- Every motion is entitled to a hearing.
What Happened in People v. Hernandez
The case came from Kern County. In 2013, the defendant was arrested with bags of marijuana in her car. She pleaded guilty to two charges. At the time, she had lived in the United States for 36 years and had been a lawful permanent resident for more than 20 years. Her whole family lived here.
Her plea form included an immigration warning, and her initials appeared next to it. Her lawyer signed a statement on the form saying he had explained the possible immigration consequences. But during the short plea hearing in court, no one mentioned immigration.
About two years later, with permission from probation, she traveled to Mexico. When she returned through Los Angeles International Airport, immigration officials detained her and started removal proceedings.
She then asked the court to vacate her conviction. She testified that her lawyer never told her she would almost certainly be deported. Her plea lawyer had died, and her new lawyer could not obtain his case file. The trial court denied the motion, relying largely on the signed plea form. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed. It directed that the case go back to the trial court with orders to grant the motion and vacate the convictions. Justice Corrigan agreed that courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, but she would have sent the case back for a new hearing instead.
Why a Signed Form Was Not Enough
The court explained that the key question is what the person actually understood when entering the plea. Quoting an earlier appellate case, the court said, “The key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.”
The standard warning tells a person that a conviction “may” have immigration consequences. The court said this warning shows the person was alerted to a possible problem. It also shows the person was made aware of the need to talk with a lawyer. But it “does not alone show” that the person received complete and accurate advice and truly understood it.
The court also looked at what she did later. She asked probation for permission to travel and presented herself to immigration officials at the airport. When she was detained, she did not agree to be deported. She fought her removal and tried to withdraw her plea. The court found that this conduct supported her claim.
What Courts Can Weigh Now
The court described many kinds of evidence that can matter. Examples include:
- Whether the defense lawyer asked about immigration status and gave accurate advice.
- Whether the lawyer explained other pleas that could have avoided or reduced immigration harm.
- Whether anyone tried to negotiate that kind of plea.
- How long the person had lived in the United States, and their family and community ties here.
- Education, English skills, age, and ability to understand the interpreter.
- What the person did after the plea, such as presenting themselves at an airport or applying for an immigration benefit.
There is an important limit. The court said a person’s “bare assertion” that they did not understand is not enough. The claim “must be corroborated by objective evidence.” The court also noted that it will generally be in the person’s interest “to create a robust record.”
Proving Prejudice: Would You Have Chosen Differently?
Showing an error is only half of the case. The person must also show prejudice. That means a “reasonable probability” that they would not have entered the plea if they had understood its immigration consequences and their options.
The court explained that a reasonable probability “does not mean more likely than not.” The focus is on what the person would have done, not on whether a trial would have gone better.
Here, the court found prejudice. It pointed to her deep ties to the United States, her lack of a prior record, signs that the prosecution may have been open to a different deal, and her decision to contest removal.
Deadlines and New Plea Rules
A motion under section 1473.7(a)(1) is generally treated as timely at any time after the person is no longer in criminal custody. But a court may find it untimely if it was not filed with “reasonable diligence” after certain events. These include a notice to appear in immigration court that relies on the conviction, or notice of a final removal order based on it.
California also changed its plea warning law. Since January 1, 2026, Penal Code section 1016.5 requires the court to give the immigration warning “verbatim on the record” before accepting a guilty or no contest plea. A separate law, Penal Code section 1016.3, requires defense lawyers to “provide accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition.”
What This Decision Does Not Do
This ruling does not erase old convictions on its own. Each motion depends on its own record, and the person still carries the burden of proof. Courts will still weigh the plea form, the court transcript, and the person’s own statements. A judge who finds that the person understood the consequences can still deny the motion.
A state court motion is also only one part of the picture. Anyone facing immigration proceedings should also speak with an immigration attorney about how a state court ruling may affect the federal case.
Talk With a Post-Conviction Relief Lawyer
Mines Law Firm handles post-conviction relief in California, including motions to vacate convictions under Penal Code section 1473.7, habeas corpus petitions, and resentencing. The firm also handles criminal defense, personal injury, and selected family law matters. If you are looking for a post-conviction relief lawyer or a California habeas corpus lawyer because an old plea is now causing immigration problems, call or text 888-700-0093 or visit themineslawfirm.com to request a consultation.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Responsible attorney: Jasmine Mines, Mines Law Firm, 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.
Sources checked (October 4, 2026): People v. Hernandez (August 13, 2026, S282186), California Supreme Court, majority opinion and concurring and dissenting opinion read in full on courts.ca.gov; Penal Code sections 1473.7, 1016.5, and 1016.3, read on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.