Uribe & Uribe APLC serves clients that are in criminal custosy or immigration custody or both. We focus on defending, hard to defend immigrant clients from all walks of life. Our mission is to provide excellent representation in cases ranging from allegations of serious felonies to misdemeanors. At Uribe & Uribe APLC we recognize that there is a vast group of underserved individuals that must navigate both California Criminal Court system as well as the federal government's immigration court system. This website is dedicated to educating clients with immigration concerns that are also facing accusations of criminal misconduct in criminal court. Representing immigrant clients that have immigration concerns and reflects an important part of Uribe & Uribe APLC's practice.

Why Seek Post Conviction Relief?

For most people a guilty plea in criminal court entered many years ago is nothing more than a bad memory of a difficult time in one's past. The truth is that criminal convictions for a defedant that is not a United States citizen can have devastating effects many years after the incident. Criminal convictions can cause immigrants to be placed in removal proceedings, be detained for weeks, months, or years in immigration facilities often located hundreds of miles from home, and then result in deportion. In recognizing the severity of these immigration penalties, and the fact that they flow directly from criminal convictions the California Legislature has enacted legal remedies that can assist immigrant defendants that entered an uninformed plea in the past that are now causing adverse immigration consequences. Immigration consequences of a criminal conviction can include removal, permament ineligibility for law immigration status, extended or indefinite periods of immigration detention, and permanent seperation from family members who are United States citizens. This can happen no matter how long you have lived in the United States and no matter how many of your family members are United States citizens. 

As our Supreme Court has found, "criminal convictions may have 'dire consequences' under federal immigration law and that such consequences are "material matters" for non-citizen defendants faced with pleading decisions. A deported alien who cannot return "loses his job, his friends, his home, and maybe even his children, who must choose between their [parent] and their native country..." Indeed, a defendant 'may view immigration consequences as the only ones that could affect his or her calculations regarding the advisability of pleading guilty to criminal charges' such as when the defendant has family residing legally in the United States. Thus, even before the Legislature expressly recongized [in section 1016.5, subdivision (d)] the unfairness inherent in holding non citizens to pleas they entered without knowing the consequent immgiration risks, we held that justice may require permitting one who pleads guilty "without knowledge of or reason to suspect [immigration] consequences" to withdraw the plea.

Penal Code Section 1473.7

On January 1, 2017 California Penal Code Section 1473.7 went into effect, providing people who are no longer in criminal custody with a legal vehicle to challenge old, unlawful convictions. This law provides an opportunity for noncitizens to challenge convictions when the noncitizen failed to meaningfully understand, knowingly accept, or defend against the immigration consequences of a crime. In 2018 the California Legislature amended the Penal Code since some courts mistakenly interpreted section 1473.7(a)(1) to apply solely to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, ignoring the statutory language that a claim could be made based on the defendant's subjective inability to "meaningfully understand" or "knowingly accept" the immigration consequences of a plea. Instead it was found that the law must be interpreted in the interests of justice and in accordance with the findings and declarations of California Penal Code Section 1016.2. Penal Code Section 1016.2 describes the severe and disproportionate impact that criminal consequences can have for noncitizen defendants and the damage that deportations can cause to United States citizen family members and communities. 

In order to qualify for relief under the law a defendant must no longer be in actual or constructive criminal custody. A penal code 1473.7 motion must also be filed with due diligence. The clock starts clicking on a claim when the defendant is placed on notice of the immigration consequences of a crime, which occurs at the later of the two dates, either: (1) when a person receives a notice to appear in removal proceedings or a denial of some immigration bnefit alleging the conviction as the basis for removability or the benefit's denial: or (2) when a person receives a final order of removal.

In order to be succesful in a Penal Code Section 1473.7 motion, the moving party must establish that a "prejudicial error" occured. Penal Code Section 1473.7(e)(1) indicates that the moving part must establish that the "conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing, or has the potential to cause, removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization". In simple terms there must be a connections shown between the conviction and an articulable immigration consequence. For more information on Penal Code Section 1473.7 and how this law can help a noncitizen defendant follow this link.  

Penal Code Section 1016.5

If the court did not advise you of potential adverse immigration consequences you may be able to prosecute a Penal Code section 1016.5 motion to have that conviction vacated. The rule is that before a court may accept a guily or no contest plea, it must advise the defendant of the potential immigration consequences of his or her plea as provided in Penal Code section 1016.5, subdivision (a). Where there is no record the defendant was so advised, there is a presumption he or she was not, and the prosecution bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. If the advisements were not given, section 1016.5(b) provides the defendant with the remedy of moving to withdraw a guilty or no contest plea when he or she establishes that the conviction based upon the plea may have the consequences of his or her deportation, exclusion for admission in the United States, or the denial of naturalization. Simply Penal Code Section 1016.5(a) requires the trial court, prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to give the defendant the following advisement on the record.

If you are not a citizen, you are hereby advised that conviction of the offense for which you have been charged may have the consequence of deportation, exclusion for admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.

Upon receiving the advisements, the Penal Code Section contemplates a period during which the defendant, without risking the loss of the existing plea bargain, can reconsider its value in light of immigration consequences that will result from it and attempt to negotiate a different bargain that will not have the same consequences. The reason why the California Legislature enacted this statue is to promote fairness to such accused individuals by requiring in such cases that acceptance of a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere be preceded by an appropriate warning of the special consequences of his or her guilty or no contest plea, the statute provides a remedy: If the court fails to advise the defendant as required by this section and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense may have the consequence for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, the court, on defendant's motion, shall vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. For more information on Penal Code Section 1016.5 and how this law can help a noncitizen defendant follow this link.

Guilty Pleas Cause Grief in Immigration Court

Many immigrants do not become aware of immigration consequences until immigration authorities initiate removal proceedings, often years after the immigrant defendant successfully completed probation or parole. As a result, many families have been torn apart by deportations based on convictions entered unknowingly by immigrant defendants. 

Vacate a Criminal Conviction To Avoid Deportation

The attorneys at Uribe & Uribe APLC understand the high stakes and severe consequences that are involved when a client is accused of a crime. Defending non-citizens accused of crime requires an understanding of how a criminal conviction will affect an immigrant's fate in immigration court. Drug charges, domestic violence, DUIs, solicitation, assault, aggravated felonies and fire arm charges are just a few of the many crimes that will cause adverse immigration consequences for an immigrant defendant in criminal court. The attorneys at Uribe & Uribe APLC understand the high stakes for a client who has immigration concerns. Defending non-citizen clients with visas and permanent residency cards takes an understanding of immigration law since an immigrant client faces another set of consequences in immigration court. For an immigrant defendant it is important to engage a law firm who is knowledgable in both the consequences of criminal and immigration law. 

Deportation Ruins Lives 

Too often defense attorneys either through fear or intimidation settle for a plea deal that do not serve their client's best interest. When it comes to concerns about adverse immigration concerns many judges and prosecutors may see immigration as a collateral issue but the fear of being deported as a result of a guilty plea is often the most important interest that an immigrant client has. Deportation or removal from the United States can signify a complete change a person's life and destroy everything that the client has worked to achieve. At the law firm of Uribe & Uribe APLC  we know it is in our client's best interest to not settle for a PLEA deal that can lead to deportation, exclusion from admission or denial of naturalization later in immigration court, instead it is important to navigate the immigration. An aggressive defense against an aggressive prosecution levels the playing field in a court of criminal law. The immigration and criminal defense attorneys at Uribe & Uribe APLC enable a noncitizen client to have a chance at maintaining his or her life in the United States. In fact the United States Supreme Court agrees immigration concerns are an important consideration for a non citizen client. In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court made deportation an exception to the collateral consequences rule, and held for the first time that counsel's failure to advise a criminal defendant of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. The stakes are raised when a client is a non- citizen and is faced with the decision of accepting a "deal" in criminal court versus risking deportation as a result of the "deal" in Immigration Court. The reality is that a criminal conviction can be the cause of deportation. Post conviction relief in criminal court can mean setting aside a criminal conviction, changing a conviction to another charge, or reducing the charge and most importantly can mean avoiding deportation and removal from the United States. 

Defending The Rights of Immigrants 

Immigrants accused of a crime face not only penal consequences once they are accused of a crime, but also face immigration consequences as a result of the criminal accusations. Whether it is fighting an active criminal case to avoid immigration consequences or vacating a conviction from a client's record the  Uribe & Uribe APLC takes pride in representing the hard to defend. In 2010, Padilla v. Kentucky established that criminal defense lawyers must advise clients about deportation consequences of a conviction, as part of their duties under the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.  Mr. Padilla won in the Supreme Court because his trial lawyer erroneously informed him that he would not be deported after pleading guilty to a drug trafficking charge because he had been in the United States for so long and had served in the military in Vietnam. The United States Supreme Court found that Mr. Padilla suffered from his attorney's ineffective assistance of counsel since Mr. Padilla showed both attorney incompetence and prejudice as a result of his attorneys performance. The decision in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) established a rule requiring attorneys to inform, advise and defend against adverse immigration consequences. In Lee v. United States (2017) the Court considered the standard for proving prejudice, here it was found that Mr. Lee's trial lawyer failed to meet his duty under Padilla by assuring him that he would not be deported if he pled guilty to selling ecstasy. The Court determined that the proper standard for proving prejudice when a defendant pleads guilty in a case involving strong evidence of guilt. Like many immigrants in the United States Mr. Lee had strong ties to the United States. Lee's parents, who both later naturalized as United States citizens, brought him here as a teenager. Lee graduated high school here and had lived in the United States for more than 30 years, never returning to his home country. Inspite of being in the United States for more than thirty years he never became a United States citizen instead he was a lawful permanent resident and thus subject to mandatory deportation for a drug sale conviciton. It was held that Mr. Lee would have taken a chance a trial even if it was a hail mary since he had so many connections to the United States. It was found that the test for prejudice includes a view of the entire context of the defendant's life. 

Vacting Criminal Convictions For Immigration Purposes and Defending Against Removal from the United States 

Uribe & Uribe APLC a Los Angeles Immigration and Criminal Defense Law Firm focuses on representing immigrant clients in both criminal and immigraiton court. Erasing a criminal conviction from a defendant's record can often be the only option to avoid harsh immigration consequences such as deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, and denial of naturalization. The post-conviction process can be difficult but with the experienced team at Uribe & Uribe APLC  it can be a possibility that helps keeps a family together. To find out if you are eligible for post-conviction relief contact Uribe & Uribe  APLC.



Si necesita asistencia en Español por favor llame a mi oficina para programar una consulta en Español.     

Uribe & Uribe APLC offers aggressive legal representation for client's accused of crimes and facing removal from the United States. Our attorneys have experience defending clients in DUIs, Felonies, and Misdemeanors, Post-Conviction Relief for Immigration, Removing Convictions, Reducing Convictions, and defending clients in complex criminal matters, immigration removal proceedings, asylum petitions and more.  If you need answers to difficult questions, please do not hesitate to contact Uribe & Uribe APLC to address your concerns and provide you with the aggressive legal representation that you deserve.

Erasing a Criminal Conviction To Avoid Immgration Consequences Pursuant to Penal Code Seciton 1016.5

Upon entering a plea of guilty or no contest in criminal court and if the court does not advise a defendant facing immigrant consequences such as deportation, in immigration court, then Penal Code Section 1016.5 provides the immigrant defendant facing adverse immigration consequences as a result of the plea to withdraw the plea. Once the plea is withdrawn, the court "vacates" the conviction meaning the conviction is erased from the immigrant defendant's record.   Once a plea is vacated the Immigration Court cannot use the conviction against the immigrant defendant for removal purposes. A defendant that succesfully vacates this conviction must be aware that  the prosecutor can seek to instate the charges. The reason that the prosecutor can reinstate the charges is becuase the procedure or process was flawed and now with understanding correctly the immigration consequences a defendant can now face the allegations.  

Immigrant Defendants Have a Right To Effective Assistance of Counsel Through Every Stage of Criminal Court

All defendants in criminal court regardless of immigration status are entitled to effective assistance of counsel. If an attorney's conduct falls below an objective standard of reasonablness than a defendant can make a claim against the attorney and may be able to withdraw the plea. An attorney's conduct must be objective and reasonable throughout the criminal court process. While most claims may seek to invalidate a conviction based on a plea of guilty or no contest, a defendant may vacate a conviction, even after trial, on the ground of ineffective assistance during plea bargaining. Strategic decisions made by a non citizen's criminal defense attorney is important. Plea bargaining to to an "immigration safe" alternative is important. Accepting an "immigration safe" plea is important to avoid for instance a life time banishment from the United States. Often time an "immigration safe" plea which avoids adverse immigration consequences may require more custody time but in the context of avoiding adverse immigration consequences this can be a better choice. A claim of immigration related ineffectiveness may be presented where, through counsel's error during plea bargaining, in failing to advise the defendant of the adverse immigration consequences of a conviction at trial, the defendant fails to defend against these advise immigration consequences by failing to seek an alternative disposition to avoid them.