Pleas: immigration.

Plain English Breakdown

The bill summary does not provide specific details on what happens if prosecutors prove they had good reason for not offering a better deal.

Plea Negotiations and Immigration

This law changes how prosecutors must discuss potential negative immigration impacts with defendants during plea negotiations for misdemeanor or infraction charges.

What This Bill Does

• Requires the prosecution to meet and confer with defense counsel during plea negotiation to avoid adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence.
• Establishes a rebuttable presumption that the prosecutor violated this requirement if the defendant shows facts indicating they proposed an alternative plea or sentence to avoid negative immigration impacts and the prosecutor declined it.
• Requires courts to hold hearings when a prima facie showing is made regarding the above circumstances.
• Makes prosecutors prove good cause for not offering a better deal if the court thinks they should have.

Who It Names or Affects

• Defendants facing misdemeanor or infraction charges
• Prosecutors handling criminal cases
• Defense lawyers advising clients on plea deals

Terms To Know

Plea negotiation

The process where a prosecutor and defense lawyer discuss the terms of a guilty plea before trial.

Immigration consequences

Negative effects on someone's immigration status due to criminal charges or convictions.

Limits and Unknowns

• Does not specify what happens if the prosecutor proves they had good reason for not offering a better deal.
• The bill needs approval from the Commission on State Mandates before it can be fully implemented.
• It is unclear how much this will cost local agencies and school districts.

Official Summary Text

AB 2669, as amended, Gipson.
Pleas: immigration.
Existing law provides the pleas a defendant may make to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction. Existing law requires defense counsel to advise a defendant about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, as specified.
Existing law requires the prosecution to consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process, as specified.
This bill would
make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision.
instead require the prosecution to meet and confer during the negotiation process with
the defense in an effort to avoid the adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of a violation of the above-described requirement if the defendant asserts facts that provide a prima facie showing that during negotiations the defendant proposed an alternative plea or sentence that would avoid adverse immigration consequences, including, among other things, an offense of greater seriousness, and the prosecution declined the offer. Upon a prima facie showing of the above-described circumstances, the bill would require the court to order a hearing and would require the prosecution to demonstrate good cause for the failure to offer a plea that would avoid adverse immigration consequences. If the court finds that the prosecuting attorney failed to establish good cause at the above-described hearing, the bill would require the court to impose an appropriate remedy, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, the bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Current Bill Text

Download Bill PDF