P. v. Vargas
Defendant and respondent Jesus Salvador Vargas pled guilty to drug charges and was granted probation. Vargas later claimed his counsel was ineffective for affirmatively misinforming him of the immigration consequences of his plea. Vargas eventually sought a writ of habeas corpus, after first having sought a writ of error coram nobis.[1] At the hearing held on July 21, 2010, on his latest petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court ruled that habeas corpus was not the procedurally correct vehicle for addressing this claim. Instead, the court granted a writ of error coram nobis setting aside Vargas's guilty plea. The People appeal this order, contending (1) the trial court erred when it addressed Vargas's claim by granting the writ of error coram nobis, and (2) the remedy here is to reverse the trial court's order granting the writ of error coram nobis and allow Vargas to file a properly verified petition for writ of habeas corpus. In response, Vargas (1) agrees that the trial court should have addressed his claim by ruling on his petition for writ of habeas corpus, but (2) contends the remedy is to let stand the trial court's order setting aside the guilty plea, but direct the trial court to correct the minute order to reflect that the trial court granted his petition for writ of habeas corpus, rather than his petition for writ of error coram nobis. As discussed below, we agree with both parties that the proper vehicle for this claim was a petition for writ of habeas corpus. As for the remedy, because neither the petition nor the procedure followed below were adequate to establish that Vargas's constructive custody was illegal, we remand the matter to allow Vargas to file a new petition for habeas corpus that complies with the statutory requirements.
Comments on P. v. Vargas