Sometimes I just don’t get it. There is a penal code section that has been
in existence since 1978 which requires judges to inform defendants that if they
plead guilty or no contest to a criminal charge, their plea can result in their
being deported or denied naturalization or excluded from admission to this
country. The law says that this must be
told to a defendant before he pleads guilty and he must acknowledge that he
understands this. The purpose here is
to have an individual warned of significant potential negative consequence of
his plea.
So what happens?
In 1992, Jose Francisco Zamudio pleads no contest to auto theft, and is
never told by Judge Michael Platt that he could be permanently barred from this
country. Sure enough, Mr. Zamudio finds
himself in trouble with the INS. He
then moves to withdraw his plea of no contest, as he had not been made aware of
the potential immigration consequences.
Did the State Supreme Court follow the law as it was
put forth by the legislature, and as one might reasonably assume they would
do? No! The State Supreme Court found that defendants’ pleas in this type
of situation can only be withdrawn if the defendant can show prejudice. The showing of prejudice means that the
individual must show the court that he would not have accepted the plea
agreement and would not have pleaded no contest had he known of the potential
immigration consequences. Now, the
penal code section says nothing about a defendant having to show prejudice. The State Supreme Court is reading into the
statute something that doesn’t exist.
The Court sent the Zamudio case back to the trial court, directing it to
determine whether or not Mr. Zamudio can show prejudice.
In reality, I don’t think this ruling will affect too
many non-citizens. I think it’s safe to
say that if you plead guilty to a crime and because of it, you are about to be
deported, that would be a pretty good showing of prejudice, such as would
permit the individual to withdraw his plea of guilty. So I don’t think that too many people will be adversely affected,
however, I am not a big fan of judicial legislation. We have the State Legislature, not to mention all of those
propositions on our ballot every November with which to pass laws. The role of the Court is to interpret the
laws, not add to them. This is not
logical. The statute in this case is
not at all ambiguous. It doesn’t say,
“oh, by the way, you have to show prejudice.”
It is a clearly stated rule of law. However, by a five to two vote, the
State Supreme Court decided to do a little legislating of its own. It would be nice for lawyers and other to be
able to rely on the plain meaning of words.
Life is complicated enough at times that it is not at all useful to add
a complicating factor where none exists.