Southern California Defense Blog

Anytime a Defendant in a California pleads guilty to a misdemeanor or a felony, that defendant must be advised “on the record” that the consequences of the guilty plea could result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the Untied States. Unfortunately, when some defendants agree to a plea bargain, their attorneys don’t adequately warn them of these potentially dire consequences which can lead to significant problems down the road. Many times, attorneys will simply tell their clients just to initial and sign important plea bargain and advisement of rights forms.

Our law firm is seeing more and more cases where clients come into our offices and explain that they or a loved one is in danger of being deported or can’t gain citizenship due to a guilty plea in a criminal case. More often than not, these people explain that they had no idea that what was happening to them or their loved ones was possible because either the court or the attorney handling the case didn’t tell them.

Continue reading "All Persons Accused of Crimes in California Need to Be Advised on the Record of Immigration Consequences of Guilty Plea" »

As a result of Operation Community Shield, law enforcement has arrested 1,785 gang members and associates around the country between March and September of this year. Of those arrested, approximately 300 were from the Los Angeles area. Gangs that were targeted in Los Angeles County during the sweep included the Avenues, 18th Street, Barrio Evil 13 and Mara Salvatrucha gangs. Charges against these alleged members ranged from drug dealing, drug trafficking and reentry after deportation to murder.

Virginia Kice, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, stated that the majority of charges of those arrested in Los Angeles County were criminal while the rest were for immigration violations. The goal of Operation Community Shield is to disrupt a gang’s organization in Los Angeles County and throughout the nation by taking out its members with both criminal arrests and prosecution for immigration violations.

Continue reading "Gang Crackdown in LA" »

On Tuesday, October 13, 2009, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Padilla v. Kentucky in which the issue was whether criminal defense attorneys are required to advise their clients of the consequences to immigration status if he or she pleads guilty to a crime.

If the court were to decide in favor of the defendant, then this would mean that every California criminal defense attorney would be required by law to tell their clients about the ramifications of pleading guilty to a crime on their immigration status. Failure to do so would result in a viable Inadequacy of Assistance Claim (“IAC”). A successful IAC claim could mean that a defendant would be entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and would be then entitled to a jury trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that it would be unfair to not permit the defendant to withdraw his plea in this case because he had pled guilty without knowing that such a plea would cause him to be deported. This sort of consequence would have been extremely harsh, especially for a person who has been living in the U.S. for more than twenty years. However, if required, it would be practically impossible to administer given the public defender’s high volume of cases.

Continue reading "Do Criminal Defense Attorneys Have to Advise Immigrants of the Consequences to Their Immigration Status Before They Plead Guilty to a Crime?" »

On Tuesday, October 6, 2009, Federal Officials promised to do a comprehensive review of every contract and consider new agreements to reform the immigration detention system.

Back in 2007, federal officials were to pay $51 million to expand the Mira Loma facility to house and additional 1,400 immigrants. This facility is currently the largest in the state and is run by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

The reform is necessary in an era where there have been dozens of deaths in the detention facilities and wrongly detained U.S. citizens. Reports indicate that on any given day, about 32,000 immigrants are detained, including those seeking refuge in the United States. The overhaul plans to increase enforcement of immigration laws while increasing use of alternatives to detention for non-violent immigrants.

Continue reading "Overhaul of Federal Immigration Detention Facilities" »

A previous article began the discussion of how the California Supreme Court decided in March 2009 that immigrants facing deportation are no longer provided with the option of two common post conviction challenges. These include the legal procedures of a writ of habeas corpus and a write of error coram nobis, which provide post conviction relief if immigration consequences have been altered.

Withdrawal of Plea
In most states, immigrants have available to them procedures to clean their record of deportable offenses. California however has no such procedure. The court ruled in a unanimous decision, that only defendants who are still in state custody may use writs of habeas corpus. In one recent case, People v. Kim, an immigrant no longer in custody may not exercise a writ of coram nobis, which in the past would allow an immigrant the opportunity of an investigation into ineffective representation that led to a guilty plea.

A writ of coram nobis used to allow the chance for an immigrant to withdraw his or her plea and eliminate the original conviction based on a defect, thus resulting in the immigrant not needing to be deported. However, the court unanimously rejected the use of a writ of error coram nobis as a procedural challenge to deportation. The court acknowledged that other jurisdictions have broadened the scope for coram nobis so that it resembles a post-conviction remedy available to immigrants no longer in custody. However the California Supreme Court felt that any change to the law needs to come from the legislature and not the courts.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court Limits Options Available to Immigrants Trying to Avoid Deportation Part II" »

The California Supreme Court ruled in March 2009 that immigrants who are facing deportation may no longer rely on two common post-conviction challenges: the legal procedures of a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of error coram nobis that provide post conviction relief if immigration consequences have been altered. The courts ruled in two separate cases, People v. Kim and People v. Villa, that these options would no longer be available to a defendant once they have served a sentence and are no longer on parole or probation. This article will examine a few key points regarding how the ruling affects the rights of immigrants at risk of deportation.

California Criminal Appeals: Revised Rights
To begin with, in People v. Villa, the California Court of Appeal considered Villa’s writ of habeas corpus because even though he completed probation, he was in "custody" from a 1989 conviction. However in the end, the California Supreme Court refused the writ, deciding that Villa was neither in constructive or actual state custody and therefore could not be issued the writ of habeas corpus, which would have provided legal action to seek relief from possible unlawful detention.

The court ruling means that once the defendant is no longer “in custody”, it is too late for the state courts to entertain either writ. Many immigrants and criminal defense lawyers do not fully realize these consequences when pleading to the criminal charge. Often a criminal defense attorney will advise a defendant to plead guilty to avoid incarceration without investigating the immigration penalties. A skilled California criminal defense attorney should be aware of immigration intricacies, and to know their client’s immigration situation before advising them to plead guilty to a charged offense.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court Limits Options Available to Immigrants Trying to Avoid Deportation Part I" »

A recent report in the Los Angeles Daily Journal indicates that in the last few months several suspected illegal immigrants were arrested inside downtown Los Angeles immigration courts while they waited for their court hearings to begin. One local Immigration attorney stated that these arrests are “shocking”. One of the attorney’s clients was arrested by Immigration Officers when he came to court to appear at his court hearing. Two other immigration lawyers said the same thing had happened to their clients.

While the clients were waiting in court, Immigration Officers signaled them to come outside where they were arrested.

A recently retired Immigration judge called the arrests acts of arrogance on the part of ICE law enforcement.

He was quoted as saying:

“For ICE to just unilaterally say to someone, ‘You had your day in court. We are sending you home. We don’t care and the court doesn’t have jurisdiction’..seems a bit arrogant.”

Continue reading "Immigration Officers Arresting Suspected Illegal Aliens in Los Angeles Immigration Courtrooms" »

A recent report in the Los Angeles Daily Journal indicates that in the last few months several suspected illegal immigrants were arrested inside downtown Los Angeles immigration courts while they waited for their court hearings to begin. One local INS attorney stated that these arrests are “shocking.” One of this lawyer’s clients was arrested by INS agents when he came to court to appear at his court hearing. Two other immigration lawyers said the same thing had happened to their clients.

While the clients were waiting in court, INS agents signaled them to come outside where they were arrested.

A recently retired INS judge called the arrests acts of arrogance on the part of ICE law enforcement.

He was quoted as saying:

“For ICE to just unilaterally say to someone, “You had your day in court. We are sending you home. We don’t care and the court doesn’t have jurisdiction; that seems a bit arrogant.”

If you or a loved one is facing a case where you have to appear in court and you are not here legally, it is always a wise decision to retain an experienced CA criminal defense law firm to appear in court for you so that you can avoid any questions about your immigration status. You can call Wallin and Klarich at 1-888-280-6839. We have been helping people accused of all crimes for over thirty years. You can also reach us at wklaw.com 24/7. We will be there when you call.

Deportation for Drunk Driving? You Need an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

A new court decision may allow persons convicted of drunk driving in California to be deported. On March 4, 2009, the United States Appeals Court for the 9th circuit decided the case of Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder.

Mr. Campos was a Mexican national who was convicted of driving under the influence for the second time. While pleading guilty, he admitted knowing his license was suspended or revoked. The Board of Immigration Appeals had ruled Mr. Campos could be deported for driving under the influence with a suspended driver’s license.

They found the combination of driving under the influence and a suspended license constituted “moral turpitude.” Mr. Campos appealed that decision to the United States Appeals Court. The Appeals Court declined to change the decision. Mr. Campos was found to be deportable for a misdemeanor offense.

If not a U.S. citizen, you can’t take a chance on deportation. That’s why you need a skilled, experienced criminal defense attorney in California to advise you. You will find the attorney you need at Wallin and Klarich. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

What Happens If I Plead Guilty To A Crime And I’m An Immigrant? Can My Status Be Revoked? Do I Need A Criminal Defense Attorney?

If you have been charged with a serious crime in San Bernardino, or in any other county in California, and are thinking of pleading guilty or no contest, there is some important information you should consider, especially if you’re an immigrant to this country.

For people who are not citizens, being convicted of DUI, domestic violence, sex crimes, or any other serious crime may lead to certain immigration consequences. It is essential that you consider these, as well as the criminal consequences, before entering a plea of guilty or no contest. Unfortunately, some people are not even aware of them. In People v. Chien, it was held that the courts are required to vacate a conviction where defendants are not advised by the court of the immigration consequences of a plea. However, the court will not overturn a conviction if the defendant's attorney did not advise his client of the immigration consequences of a plea.This is why it is essential that you hire a knowledgeable and top criminal defense attorney in California before entering a plea.

The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years experience in criminal defense matters, and have dealt with immigration issues on multiple accounts.

For a consultation to discuss your offense or hearing, please call us at 1-888-280-6839. Our attorneys are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to answer any of your questions. You can also visit us at www.wklaw.com for more information.

Drunk Driving On A Suspended License Is a Deportable Crime Requiring the Assistance of a Criminal Defense Attorney

A recent ruling by the United States Appeals Court for the 9th District underscores the necessity of hiring an aggressive and skilled California criminal defense attorney. Circuit Judge O’Scannlain, writing the opinion for the six member majority, found drunk driving “offenses committed with the knowledge that one’s driver’s license has been suspended or otherwise restricted are crimes of moral turpitude.” The United States Appeals Court for the 9th District ruled that drunken driving on a suspended license in California is a deportable offense. A conviction of a crime of moral turpitude may be grounds for deportation.

In that case, the Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence in 1997. At that time immigration officials sought to deport him but he was successful in avoiding deportation. Defendant again was arrested in 2002 for driving under the influence after he ran a red light and was found to be intoxicated. Immigration officials again sought to deport him. An immigration judge ruled that Defendant was in fact deportable. After spending three years in a federal detention facility, the Defendant returned to Mexico.

If you or a loved one have been charged with driving under the influence, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced criminal defense firm. Hiring an experienced DUI defense law firm in California can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom, and ensuring you receive the lowest possible sentence. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-888-280-6839, or go to our website at wklaw.com for more information.

The California Supreme Court ruled this month that immigrants who are facing deportation may no longer rely on two common post-conviction challenges. The court ruled in two separate cases that a writ of habeas corpus, or writ of error coram nobis, would no longer be available to a defendant once they had served a sentence and were no longer on parole or probation. The court’s ruling means that once the defendant is no longer “in custody,” it is too late for the state courts to entertain either writ.

In most states, immigrants have available to them procedures to clean their criminal record of deportable offenses. California however has no such procedure. The court ruled in a unanimous decision that only defendants who are still in state custody may use writs of habeas corpus.

In a second case, the court rejected the use of a writ of error coram nobis as a procedural challenge to deportation. The court acknowledged that other jurisdictions have broadened the scope for coram nobis so that it resembles a post-conviction remedy available to persons no longer in custody. However the California Supreme Court felt that any change needs to come from the legislature.

If you or a loved one is facing deportation as a result of a criminal conviction, you must contact California’s top criminal defense attorney immediately. Wallin & Klarich have been helping people with criminal cases for over 30 years. If you have any questions about deportation consequences, call Wallin and Klarich at 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website at www.wklaw.com.

A recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decision held that a state pardon does not remove all legal consequences of a conviction.

This case involves an illegal alien who had a long history of illegal presence in the United States. On February 4, 1993 he pled guilty to unlawful possession of cocaine.

On April 30, 2001, he filed an application for adjustment of status to permanent resident due to his marriage to a United States citizen. The application was denied by the Department of Homeland Security for two reasons: 1) he was inadmissible for status as a permanent resident due to his second removal within a ten year period; and 2) violating the law relating to a controlled substance in 1993.

The denial included a Notice to Appear before an IJ for removal proceedings. He was subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii) providing for removal of an inadmissible alien who has been convicted of crime relating to a controlled substance.

Prior to his removal however, the Governor of the State of Washington granted him a “Full and Unconditional Pardon.” At the removal hearing, he requested a waiver of the controlled substance inadmissibility charge, which would permit him to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The IJ rejected his request, reasoning that although a waiver is available for aliens who have been admitted into this country, no comparable waiver is available for aliens who have not been admitted into the country.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the BIA that a state pardon may be applicable to criminal grounds of deportability but 8 U.S.C. § 1182 contains no equivalent waiver provision pertaining to the criminal grounds of inadmissibility.

If you or someone you love is being faced with a criminal appeal in California, don’t hesitate to get an attorney! The fact that a trial court has ruled against you doesn’t preclude you from seeking the correct judgment in a higher court. You need a qualified and aggressive appeals attorney who is knowledgeable in both criminal and immigration law to fight for you and your freedom. Call a Wallin & Klarich associate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-888-749-0034 or find us online at www.wklaw.com. Our 30 years of experience and network of aggressive attorneys is sure to give you the help you need.

People v. Akhile

For those considering filing a motion to vacate a plea based on Penal Code Section 1016.5, familiarity with this case is a must.

In the above case, Appellant is a Native of Nigeria who entered the United States on a Tourist Visa and never left. In February of 1992, Appellant plead guilty to grand Theft and Embezzlement. The Trial Court sentenced him to two years state prison. Deportation proceeding began in 1993 and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed his deportation based on the 1992 conviction. Appellant argued that he did he was never aware of the immigration consequences of his plea.

Upon review, the record reflected that the Trial Court informed the Appellant of the immigration consequences at arraignment but not at the time of the plea. On appeal, the court vacated Petitioner’s plea on the basis that California Penal Code section 1016.5 requires that the Trial Court advise defendants of the adverse immigration consequences at the time of the plea.

Why is this case important? Because in instances where a Defendant was convicted of a white collar crime and the Trial Court fails to advise him or her of the immigration consequences at the time of plea, there are very good grounds to have the plea vacated.

Continue reading "Immigration Law and Vacating a Plea" »

"Go Back to Your Country!” This is what several Los Angeles gang members could be hearing soon if some local politicians have their way. Dennis Zine, a Los Angles City Councilman, proposed a policy last week that would require police officers from the LAPD to report gang members who are in the United States (US) “undocumented” (and/or illegally) to Immigration officials!

As part of the policy, police officers would be required to report “undocumented” gang members who are not even under arrest to Immigration. Even more alarming is that under this policy, if a police officer is not sure whether a gang member is in the US “undocumented” or not, they would be required to investigate the gang member’s immigration status, if the officer has a hunch that the gang member might be “undocumented.”

Continue reading "Undocumented Gang Members Run Risk of Being Deported" »

(Your Criminal Case can lead to your deportation or denial of citizenship)

It is critical that if you are not a United States citizen and are accused of a criminal offense in California must you immediately inform your criminal defense attorney of your immigration status. Your criminal defense attorney can then discuss with you your immigration status and then can have you work with immigration lawyers who can help determine what type of settlement in criminal case can avoid adverse immigration consequences.

Many people think that they know the type of criminal convictions that can lead to adverse immigration consequences. However, immigration law is highly complex and there are specific rules that are applied. Do not make the mistake of thinking you can "hide" the fact that you are not a United State Citizen from your lawyer. Your lawyer is there to help you avoid severe punishment in your criminal case. However, an experienced criminal defense law firm will want to be able to assist you with consequences that go far beyond the direct result in your criminal case.

If you are accused of a criminal offense and are not a United States citizen you should notify your California criminal defense attorney of this fact during the initial contact you have with your criminal defense law firm. Prior to the conclusion of your case it will be critical that you also consult with an immigration lawyer who can work with your criminal defense lawyer to do what is possible to avoid your deportation or denial of citizenship.

If you have any questions about this information contact Wallin and Klarich 24/7 so we can discuss this with you in more detail.

The Bush administration in an apparent “show of strength” to appease the conservative Republican voters are implementing massive arrives of “suspected” illegal aliens. When the “suspected” illegal aliens are arrested they are held without bail for long periods of time.

In recent weeks over 530 people were arrested during raids on people’s homes. Over 800 additional arrests were made while persons were being held in local county jails for various criminal charges. It is critical that if you find yourself in custody and you are not a US Citizen that you retain the services of a criminal defense lawyer to try to have the lawyer get you released from custody. If you sit in custody you are a “sitting duck” just waiting for the INS to do the next sweep and then put an INS hold on you.

It appears that the current Bush administration is going to keep the pressure on to have more illegal aliens rounded up. The sweeps will most likely continue to happen in the local jails. If you do not want to have an INS hold placed upon you, then you need to immediately contact a California criminal defense firm like Wallin and Klarich if you are arrested. You can reach Wallin and Klarich at 888.280.6839 24/7 and we will be there to help you when you call.

The California Supreme Court has recently ruled that a man who had been wrongfully imprisoned for 25 days could sue the state for false imprisonment and negligence.

The man was arrested for drunk driving but immigration and parole officials thought that they had another man who had previously been deported to Mexico several years earlier.

Continue reading "Wrongfully imprisoned? You may sue the state" »

A lawsuit was filed recently in LA Superior Court by residents of the City of Los Angeles seeking to stop the Los Angeles Police Department from enforcing its longstanding “Special Order 40.” The lawsuit alleges that Special Order 40, as well as the practices of the LAPD relating to that Order, run contrary to the mandates of California Health & Safety Code § 11369.

Special Order 40 was first enacted in November 1979 by then Police Chief Daryl Gates. The Order instructed officers to “not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person.” The Order continues that officers are prohibited from arrest[ing] or book[ing] persons for violation of Title 8, Section 1323 of the United States Immigration [sic] Code (Illegal Entry).” The Order states further that, upon arresting an “undocumented alien” for “multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense,” the LAPD is required to notify the immigration authorities of the arrest of the individual, and forward the individual’s arrest report to immigration officials.

A 2000-2001 study by the Rampart Independent Review Panel, which was assigned to investigate the Rampart scandal and report its findings to the LA Police Commission, found that, in practice, the LAPD “go[es] beyond the limited provisions of Special Order 40.” The Panel’s investigation found that LAPD officers do not notify immigration authorities of the arrest of an “undocumented alien” as they are required to do under the provisions of the Order. The Panel found that, in practice, immigration authorities are only notified of the arrest of an undocumented alien by LAPD, if, after the arrested person appears in court, the judge orders the person to be held in the Los Angeles County Jail. At this point, immigration authorities are notified by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, and not LAPD. Thus, in practice, according to the findings of the Rampart Panel, LAPD never notifies immigration authorities that an undocumented alien has been arrested.

This recently filed lawsuit challenges these practices by the LAPD as being contrary to the requirements of state law, to wit: California Health & Safety Code § 11369, which provides that, “[w]hen there is reason to believe that any person arrested for a violation of [certain enumerated drug related crimes], may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.” It seems clear that the LAPD policy of not notifying immigration authorities of the arrest of a person on such certain enumerated drug related crimes runs contrary to the requirements of this California statute.

Continue reading "LAWSUITS CHALLENGE LAPD IMMIGRATION POLICY" »

When driving down the streets of Los Angeles, most people are not concerned about dodging La Migra, otherwise known as Federal Immigration Officials. Illegal immigrants only have to worry about that stuff around the border of the United States and Mexico, right? Well, if certain anti-illegal immigrant activists have there way, illegal immigrants in Los Angeles will have to worry about Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers acting as La Migra.

Currently, LAPD officers are prohibited from inquiring into the immigration status of suspects, under the LAPD’s Special Order 40. Officers have traditionally used a “don’t ask, don’t tell” method when it comes to immigration status, in part so that members of Los Angeles’s immigrant communities will freely cooperate with officers without fear of being deported.

However, anti-illegal immigrant activists have filed suit challenging Special Order 40 and demanding that LAPD officers inform immigration officials when illegal immigrants are arrested on drug charges. These activities point to a section in the Health and safety Code which states that “the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation” of the names of individuals arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking or possession.

Continue reading "Police Acting as La Migra?" »