ÿWPCJ) ÀìÑ—²‰ïÚ×±PÖÕNK»Eq6OL â­pÖ€#l×p™œ'ÂZ—a*zÐeFPŒ?È©Æ>ÇEˆ4„³´­Tø÷lD‰DXcºˆõ¿`z™T:€œœªí¢T¼}YC¯]Ým³ô‹áy* ²Í 2{ʸüm1o2©eä/oQ7ÉKã×û"zUÒEG[Ṳ̈X°.Ë3‡Tn@o¡$h Lsõê>µ¢kü ¥RzE“e}ñ$™ÅZ²Ã›±í'ÏXpqEøSÞ£ ª2óÌ"Â^Ôöå “ÎAω³”}¨°´þh±[¤ú?˜ÔÄè†Q î{‹J"ÊÞ3&ýòftÇ/q_-Ø ë´3É™–VIñ½_‹aAÚLæ°áO~äPÇêE­Ù‡ƃp©ÉìØ,ÍVžä/#k3²%m`ª|çY¥“[Á“o¼E¥-JíxFT=õeÈ 3è—éIeã~ìr¼˨·Ò$ÅìcÆ2˜Ë#š’3ް˜ýK[Øâ¢Tíç¼X¾!+¥nòõ^n ßYÕsc ù:¯©_shƒ ÑwÚBÀBlP¿´0¢@ý™¹ ¿\9ÍɆöê::Jñ>%í9ÌœW#!ÂU0Nã %1 0(7^ _w@k4«¿Î mÐç 0lë 0DW É› ×d|;Õ·NŒ“ŽUN!!oð‡‡‡‡‡‡úw%qUN–/äUN a UNc!ì±!UN$ôë$UNß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß(ß( B-)˜HP LaserJet 4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡c¹œ4‰ ôúÿ DDiu3@Þ0iles3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ úÔ_ÔÓ  Ó3.à0  àÔ€Šô‹XXÔThe€Act€prescribes€military€participation€in€matters€of€civilian€law€enforcement€andÐ  Ðprovides,€in€relevant€part:€€ð ðWhoever,€except€in€cases€and€under€circumstancesÏexpressly€authorized€by€the€Constitution€or€Act€of€Congress,€willfully€uses€any€partÏof€the€Army€or€the€Air€Force€as€a€posse€comitatus€or€otherwise€to€execute€the€lawsÏshall€be€fined€under€this€title€or€imprisoned€not€more€than€two€years,€or€both.ðð€€€OnÏappeal,€Ms.€Fahn,€along€with€Rex€Williams,€appellate€counsel€for€Michael€Bautista,Ïattacked€the€denial€of€the€suppression€motion€on€the€ground€that€the€evidenceÏsupporting€the€search€warrant€was€obtained€in€violation€of€the€Posse€Comitatus€Act.€((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¿Ô_ÔÓ  Ó6.à0  àÔ‡Šô‹XXÔSection€1016.5€provides€in€relevant€part:€€ð ð(a)€Prior€to€the€acceptance€of€a€plea€ofÐ  Ðguilty€or€nolo€contendere€.€.€.€the€court€shall€administer€the€following€advisement€onÏthe€record€to€the€defendant:€[ðð]€€If€you€are€not€a€citizen,€you€are€hereby€advised€thatÏconviction€of€the€offense€for€which€you€have€been€charged€may€have€theÏconsequences€of€deportation,€exclusion€from€admission€to€the€United€States,€or€denialÏof€naturalization€pursuant€to€the€law€of€the€United€States.ðð€€Under€subdivision€(b),Ïif€the€court€fails€to€make€the€mandated€advisement,€and€the€defendant€shows€that€theÏconviction€may€have€the€consequence€of€deportation,€exclusion,€or€denial€ofÏnaturalization,€ð ðthe€court,€on€defendantððs€motion,€shall€vacate€the€judgment€andÏpermit€the€defendant€to€withdraw€the€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere,€and€enter€aÏplea€of€not€guilty.ðð ÍÔ_ÔÓ  Ó4.à0  àÔ€Šô‹XXÔIt€wasnððt€until€March€1,€2003,€that€INS€jurisdiction€was€transferred€to€the€DepartmentÐ  Ðof€Homeland€Security.€ rÔ_ÔÓ  Ó1.à0  àÔ‡ŠÁì‹XXÔCertain€portions€of€this€article€are€taken€from€pleadings€prepared€by€Meredith€Fahn,Ð ° Ðthe€declaration€of€Michael€Mehr,€and€from€the€Court€of€Appealððs€opinions€in€òòPeopleÐ ° Ðv.€Bautistaóó€(2004)€115€Cal.App.4th€229,€and€€òòIn€re€Dave€Bautistaóó,€H026395. ËÔ_ÔÓ  Ó5.à0  àÔ€Šô‹XXÔA€conviction€for€section€11360€is€not€an€aggravated€felony€under€immigration€lawÐ  Ðif€the€ð ðrecord€of€convictionðð€(the€complaint,€information,€plea€sentence,€andÏadmissions€at€the€time€of€the€plea)€show€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏð ðofferingðð€to€transport,€sell,€furnish€or€give€away€a€controlled€substance.€€(òòU.S.€v.Ð  ÐRivera„Sanchezóó€(9th€Cir.€2001)€247€F.3d€905.)€€€€In€addition,€transportation€ofÐ  Ðmarijuana€for€personal€use€is€not€considered€an€aggravated€felony.€€(òòUnited€States€v.Ð   ÐCasarez-Bravoóó€(9th€Cir.€1999)€181€F.3d€1074,€1077. ‰Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡ŠÁ¿‹XXÔCertain€portions€of€this€article€are€taken€from€pleadings€prepared€by€MeredithÐ ° ÐFahn,€the€declaration€of€Michael€Mehr,€and€from€the€Court€of€Appealððs€opinions€inÏòòPeople€v.€Bautistaóó€(2004)€115€Cal.App.4th€229,€and€€òòIn€re€Dave€Bautistaóó,€H026395.&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ñ°Ñ  Fahn MehrCal.AppSacherMagnan davebautistaGabrielaMuenchowRockoVertnerCentroCasarezdeportablemisadviceMr.VertnermisadvisementResendizKowisTotarinonadvisementnoncitizenSorianononcitizensGeffonemailsMetcalfPremoAdrianneGiammonadetainer uncontrovertedTulskyBamattreManoukian ðÔ_ÔÓ  Ó2.à0  àÔ‡ŠÁì‹XXÔSince€this€case€involves€both€Dave€Bautista€and€his€brother,€Michael€Bautista,€theyÐ ° Ðwill€be€referred€to€by€their€first€names€for€ease€of€reference. Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ŠÁ¿‹XXÔ€€Since€this€case€involves€both€Dave€Bautista€and€his€brother,€Michael€Bautista,Ð ° Ðthey€will€be€referred€to€by€their€first€names€for€ease€of€reference.&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular %Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€!ŠÁ¿‹XXÔThe€Act€prescribes€military€participation€in€matters€of€civilian€law€enforcementÐ  Ðand€provides,€in€relevant€part:€€ð ðWhoever,€except€in€cases€and€under€circumstancesÏexpressly€authorized€by€the€Constitution€or€Act€of€Congress,€willfully€uses€any€part€ofÏthe€Army€or€the€Air€Force€as€a€posse€comitatus€or€otherwise€to€execute€the€laws€shall€beÏfined€under€this€title€or€imprisoned€not€more€than€two€years,€or€both.ðð€€€On€appeal,€Ms.ÏFahn,€along€with€Rex€Williams,€appellate€counsel€for€Michael€Bautista,€attacked€theÏdenial€of€the€suppression€motion€on€the€ground€that€the€evidence€supporting€the€searchÏwarrant€was€obtained€in€violation€of€the€Posse€Comitatus€Act.€&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular øÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€#ŠÁ¿‹XXÔIt€wasnððt€until€March€1,€2003,€that€INS€jurisdiction€was€transferred€to€theÐ  ÐDepartment€of€Homeland€Security.€&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular âÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€%ŠÁ¿‹XXÔ€€A€conviction€for€section€11360€is€not€an€aggravated€felony€under€immigrationÐ  Ðlaw€if€the€ð ðrecord€of€convictionðð€(the€complaint,€information,€plea€sentence,€andÏadmissions€at€the€time€of€the€plea)€show€that€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€ð ðofferingððÏto€transport,€sell,€furnish€or€give€away€a€controlled€substance.€€(òòU.S.€v.€Rivera„SanchezóóÐ  Ð(9th€Cir.€2001)€247€F.3d€905.)€€€€In€addition,€transportation€of€marijuana€for€personal€useÏis€not€considered€an€aggravated€felony.€€(òòUnited€States€v.€Casarez-Bravoóó€(9th€Cir.€1999)Ð   Ð181€F.3d€1074,€1077.&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular êÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡'ŠÁ¿‹XXÔSection€1016.5€provides€in€relevant€part:€€ð ð(a)€Prior€to€the€acceptance€of€a€pleaÐ  Ðof€guilty€or€nolo€contendere€.€.€.€the€court€shall€administer€the€following€advisement€onÏthe€record€to€the€defendant:€[ðð]€€If€you€are€not€a€citizen,€you€are€hereby€advised€thatÏconviction€of€the€offense€for€which€you€have€been€charged€may€have€the€consequencesÏof€deportation,€exclusion€from€admission€to€the€United€States,€or€denial€of€naturalizationÏpursuant€to€the€law€of€the€United€States.ðð€€Under€subdivision€(b),€if€the€court€fails€toÏmake€the€mandated€advisement,€and€the€defendant€shows€that€the€conviction€may€haveÏthe€consequence€of€deportation,€exclusion,€or€denial€of€naturalization,€ð ðthe€court,€onÏdefendantððs€motion,€shall€vacate€the€judgment€and€permit€the€defendant€to€withdraw€theÏplea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere,€and€enter€a€plea€of€not€guilty.ðð&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑаÑÔ€ŠÁì‹XXÔÓ  ÓòòÔ‡¶¥!·ŠÁìÔÑ€‡JÑÑ8€5#XXdìdÈ8Ñeven€when€the€record€doesnððt€hold€a€clue€.€.€.Ô#†ŠÁì‹÷¶¥!g#ÔóóÐ ° ÐÌby€Vicki€Firstman€ñôñ׃×ñôññôñ׃×ñôñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð "r ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÓÓÌÓúÓà  àWe€were€appointed€to€represent€Dave€Bautistañúñ׃×ñúññúñ׃×ñúñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€May€of€2002.€€He€had€appealedÐ " r Ðafter€entering€a€plea€to€a€charge€of€possession€of€marijuana€for€sale€(Health€and€Saf.€Code,Ïðð€11359)€for€which€he€had€received€a€16„month€prison€term.€€The€record€on€appeal€disclosedÏa€weak€suppression€claim,€and€no€other€arguable€issues.€€Other€than€the€fact€that€Dave€hadÏneed€of€a€Spanish€interpreter€during€the€trial€court€proceedings,€the€record€on€appeal€gaveÏvirtually€no€hint€of€the€complex€immigration€issues€which€would€eventually€lead€to€theÏoverturning€of€Daveððs€conviction.Ìà  àAs€with€the€cases€showcased€by€Dallas€Sacher€and€Lori€Quick,€this€case€teaches€theÏvalue€of€listening€to€your€client,€taking€every€case€seriously,€and€undertaking€a€thorough€andÏcomplete€habeas€investigation€once€you€know€enough€to€know€that€something€just€doesnððtÏseem€right.€€This€case€also€provides€an€invaluable€lesson€about€teamwork.€€€In€Daveððs€case,Ïthere€were€a€series€of€successes,€each€spurred€on€by€the€combined€efforts€of€a€team€ofÏattorneys,€all€striving€to€find€the€best€legal€strategy€for€victory€at€every€important€crossroad.€ÏWithout€these€combined€efforts,€this€case€might€have€turned€out€very€differently.€€Finally,Ïas€with€the€òòMagnanóó€and€òòJonesóó€cases,€a€little€bit€of€luck€doesnððt€hurt,€either.Ð "%r  ÐчJÑâ âѰÑâ âÑ  ÑÓ  ÓòòÔ€îÈ9îŠÁìÔÔ‡R¤s QXîÈ9Ôdave€bautistaððs€storyóóÔ#†îÈ9î QR¤sj#ÔÐ  ÐòòòòIntroductionóóóóÐ ²˜ ÐÓ  Óà  àÔ€ŠÁì‹îîÈ9ÔDave€Bautista€was€born€in€Mexico€and€came€to€this€country€with€his€family€when€heÐ þä Ðwas€about€11€years€old.€€At€the€time€the€writ€petition€in€this€case€was€filed,€Dave€was€28Ïyears€old.€€He€had€been€in€the€United€States€more€than€17€years€and€was€a€lawful€permanentÏresident€living€with€his€family€in€San€Jose.€€His€parents€and€five€siblings€were€all€AmericanÏcitizens.€€He€and€his€wife,€Gabriela,€had€two€young€children,€both€citizens,€and€Gabriela€wasÏin€the€process€of€attaining€legal€residency.€€€Dave€had€no€prior€felonies,€but€had€sufferedÏseveral€Vehicle€Code€convictions,€none€of€which€would€have€had€any€adverse€immigrationÏconsequences.€€However,€the€events€of€July€6,€2000,€put€Dave€on€a€collision€course€with€theÏcriminal€justice€system€and€a€federal€immigration€scheme€which€leaves€no€room€forÏindividual€equities.ÌÓ  ÓÔ€îÈ9ÁìÔòòòòthe€underlying€offenseóóóóÐ þä ÐÓŽ Óà  àÔ€ŠÁì‹îîÈ9ÔOn€July€6,€2000,€Drug€Enforcement€Agent€Muenchow€arranged€to€have€an€armyÐ J0 Ðnarcotics€detection€dog€and€his€handler€brought€to€a€San€Jose€storage€facility.€€As€the€dog,Ïð ðRocko,ðð€and€his€handler€passed€a€locker€unrelated€to€their€investigation,€Rocko€repeatedlyÏalerted.€€As€a€result,€Muenchow€obtained€the€rental€agreement€for€the€locker€whichÏidentified€Michael€Bautista,€Daveððs€brother,€as€the€renter€and€Dave€as€an€individual€withÏaccess€to€the€locker.€€Muenchow€obtained€a€search€warrant€for€the€locker€on€the€same€day.€ÏThe€subsequent€search€resulted€in€the€seizure€of€approximately€100€pounds€of€marijuana.€ÏThe€following€day,€Muenchow€conducted€a€consensual€search€of€Dave€and€MichaelððsÐ J-0)( Ðresidence€where€he€found€a€small€bag€of€marijuana€in€Michaelððs€bedroom.€ÌòòÓ  ÓòòÔ‡îˆYîŠôÔThe€Trial€Court€ProceedingsÔ#†Šô‹XîˆYq#ÔóóóóÐ  ÐÓbÓà  àOn€July€11,€2000,€the€District€Attorney€of€Santa€Clara€County€filed€a€felonyÏcomplaint€charging€Dave€and€Michael€with€possession€for€sale€of€marijuana€pursuant€toÏHealth€and€Safety€Code€section€11359.€€At€the€preliminary€hearing€on€September€12,€2001,ÏDave€and€Michael€moved€to€quash€the€search€warrant€and€for€suppression€of€the€marijuanaÏon€the€ground€that€the€evidence€was€obtained€in€violation€of€the€Posse€Comitatus€Act,Ïcodified€at€18€U.S.C.€ðð€1385.ñÿñ׃ ×ñÿññÿñ׃ ×ñÿñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€motion€was€denied€and€Dave€and€Michael€were€held€toÐ fL Ðanswer.Ìà  àFollowing€the€filing€of€an€information€in€superior€court,€both€Dave€and€MichaelÏrenewed€their€motion€to€suppress.€€The€motion€was€heard€and€denied.€€Thereafter,€on€theÏadvice€of€his€trial€attorney,€Dave€pled€as€charged€in€exchange€for€a€prison€term€of€16Ïmonths.€€Michael€also€entered€a€plea€for€the€same€sentence.€Ìà  àUnbeknownst€to€Dave,€this€conviction€qualified€as€an€aggravated€felony€under€federalÏimmigration€law.€€(8€U.S.C.€ðð€1101,€subd.€(a)(43(B).)€€Conviction€of€an€aggravated€felonyÏresults€in€the€individualððs€mandatory€deportation€and€exclusion€from€the€United€States.€€(8ÏU.S.C.€ðð€1227,€subd.€(a)(2)(A)(iii).)€€While€ð ðððdeportationðððð€means€removal€from€the€UnitedÐ f$L  ÐStates€and€does€not€necessarily€preclude€readmission,ðð€ð ðððexclusionðð€means€permanentÏremoval€and€banishment,ðð€which€entails€the€ððdenial€of€reentry€into€the€United€States€at€anyÐ  Ðtime€or€for€any€purpose.ðð€€(òòPeople€v.€Bautistaóó€(2004)€115€Cal.App.4th€229,€237,€fn.€5.)€€AnÐ  Ðalien€subject€to€deportation€for€conviction€of€certain€criminal€offenses€may€be€eligible€forÏrelief€under€current€immigration€laws,€but€there€is€no€relief€possible€for€aggravated€felons.€ÏThus,€no€matter€the€equities€involved,€an€aggravated€felon€will€forever€be€banished€from€thisÏcountry€and€separated€from€family€members€who€remain€here.ÌÓ  ÓòòÔ‡ Tè !ŠôÔÓÓÌthe€habeas€petition€„€stage€Ô#†Šô‹  Tè4#ÔÔ€îˆYîŠôÔ1óóÐ V< Ðòòthe€investigation,€the€writ,€and€the€court€of€appealððs€initial€decisionóóÐ ’x ÐÌÓSÓÓ  Óà  àÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔThe€Sixth€District€Appellate€Program€(SDAP)€assigned€Daveððs€case€to€panel€attorneyÐ ÞÄ ÐMeredith€Fahn.€€My€first€involvement€in€the€case€came€when€Ms.€Fahn€called€to€tell€me€thatÏDave€was€being€held€by€the€Immigration€and€Naturalization€Service€(INS)€in€a€detentionÏcenter€and€was€currently€in€removal€proceedings.ññ׃×ññññ׃"×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Unlike€his€brother€Michael,€who€hadÐ ÞÄ Ðbeen€born€in€the€United€States,€and€had€simply€been€released€on€parole€after€serving€hisÏprison€term,€the€INS€had€detained€Dave€upon€his€release€from€prison€on€October€23,€2002.€ÏDave€had€then€been€transported€to€a€detention€center€in€El€Centro€where€he€had€beenÏinformed€that€he€would€be€deported€on€the€basis€of€the€present€offense.Ìà  àI€advised€Ms.€Fahn€to€contact€attorney€Michael€Mehr,€an€expert€in€€immigrationÏmatters.€€When€Mr.€Mehr€realized€that€there€was€an€appeal€pending,€he€recommended€filingÐ Þ(Ä$$ Ða€motion€to€terminate€deportation€proceedings€on€the€ground€that€the€conviction€was€notÏfinal.€€€(Immigration€and€Nationality€Act€ðð€236(c),€8€U.S.C.€ðð€1226(c).)€€After€furtherÏconsultation€with€Ms.€Fahn€and€with€Daveððs€family,€Mr.€Mehr€filed€the€motion,€whichÏresulted€in€the€termination€of€the€deportation€proceedings€and€Daveððs€release€from€custody.€ÏThis€was€the€first€important€crossroad€in€the€case€and€Mr.€Mehrððs€involvement€proved€to€beÏpivotal,€as€it€would€in€many€other€instances€during€Daveððs€legal€journey.Ìà  àIn€the€meantime,€having€become€aware€of€the€devastating€immigration€consequencesÏDave€was€facing,€Ms.€Fahn€began€a€habeas€investigation.€€In€consultation€with€MichaelÏMehr,€we€settled€on€a€strategy.€€The€first€step€was€to€determine€whether€Daveððs€trial€attorneyÏhad€advised€him€that€a€conviction€for€possession€for€sale€of€marijuana€would€result€in€hisÏpermanent€exclusion€from€the€United€States.€€€The€second€step€was€to€find€out€whether€trialÏcounsel€had€made€any€attempt€to€obtain€a€more€favorable€plea€bargain.€€Specifically,€weÏwanted€to€know€if€counsel€had€made€efforts€to€have€Dave€ð ðplead€upðð€to€a€non„aggravatedÏfelony€such€as€offering€to€sell€or€transport€marijuanañ ñ׃×ñ ññ ñ׃$×ñ ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€(Health€&€Saf.€Code,€ðð€11360),€evenÐ  Ðthough€that€crime€carries€a€more€severe€sentence€than€the€possession€for€sale€charge€to€whichÏDave€had€pled.€€€While€such€a€crime€would€render€Dave€ð ðdeportable,ðð€it€is€not€an€aggravatedÏfelony€and€Dave€would€remain€eligible€for€ð ðCancellation€of€Removalðð€by€virtue€of€his€longÐ $  Ðterm€legal€residency€and€the€strength€of€other€equitable€factors€such€as€the€lack€of€anyÏserious€criminal€record€and€his€close€family€ties€to€relatives€with€lawful€status.Ìà  àDave€told€Ms.€Fahn€that€his€trial€lawyer€had€advised€him€that€he€could€ð ðpossibly€beÏdeportedðð€if€convicted€but€since€the€motion€to€quash€and€to€suppress€had€been€denied,€ð ðthereÏwas€nothing€else€we€could€do€but€enter€[a]€plea€for€the€best€sentence€possible€and€take€aÏchance€that€deportation€would€not€come€to€pass.ðð€€Trial€counsel€had€never€mentioned€theÏpossibility€of€exclusion€from€the€United€States,€nor€had€he€discussed€the€possible€benefitsÏof€pleading€to€a€different,€non„aggravated€felony€charge€which€would€not€require€hisÏmandatory€deportation.€€Dave€insisted€that€had€he€known€of€the€immigration€consequencesÏflowing€from€an€aggravated€felony,€he€would€never€have€agreed€to€enter€a€plea€to€theÏpossession€for€sale€charge,€but€would€have€asked€his€attorney€to€take€every€legal€stepÏpossible€to€avoid€or€minimize€the€adverse€immigration€consequences.€€Daveððs€statementsÏwere€reduced€to€a€declaration€which€was€ultimately€filed€in€support€of€the€habeas€petition.Ìà  àMeanwhile,€Ms.€Fahn€broached€the€thorny€subject€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏwith€Daveððs€trial€counsel,€who€eventually€agreed€to€provide€a€declaration.€€In€his€declaration,Ïhe€stated€he€had€known€from€the€outset€that€Dave€was€not€a€citizen€and€that€he€faced€ð ðtheÏpossible€consequence€of€deportation.ðð€€€Accordingly,€he€had€advised€Dave€if€he€wereÏconvicted,€ð ðhe€would€be€deported€.€.€.€unless€for€some€reason€an€INS€hold€was€not€placedÏon€him.ðð€€After€denial€of€the€de€novo€motion€to€quash€and€to€suppress,€the€trial€attorney€saidÏhis€defense€strategy€ð ðshifted€to€negotiation€of€a€plea€bargain€with€the€most€lenient€sentenceÏpossible.ðð€€Counsel€stated€that€he€considered€the€plea€bargain€for€a€16„month€sentence€ð ðtheÐ ,(( Ðbest€possible€disposition.ðð€€The€trial€attorney€did€admit,€however,€that€he€did€not€attempt€toÏð ðplead€upwardðð€and€€had€no€tactical€explanation€for€this€omission:€€ð ðThe€possibility€ofÏpursuing€a€negotiated€plea€for€violation€€of€a€greater€offense,€such€as€sale,€transport,€or€offerÏto€sell€or€transport,€under€Health€and€Safety€Code€section€11360,€never€entered€my€mind€inÏthis€case.€€Accordingly,€I€never€advised€Mr.€Bautista€that€an€upward€plea€such€as€sales€wouldÏcarry€a€stiffer€prison€sentence€yet€would€not€result€in€deportation.ððÌà  àIn€addition€to€Dave€and€the€trial€attorneyððs€declarations,€Ms.€Fahn€€obtained€theÏdeclarations€of€Daveððs€wife,€Gabriela,€and€his€brother,€Michael,€who€attested€to€the€fact€thatÏDaveððs€mother,€siblings€and€children€were€American€citizens€and€also€discussed€the€hardshipÏthat€Daveððs€permanent€exclusion€would€have€on€their€family.€€While€we€could€have€filed€theÏwrit€with€these€declarations€alone,€we€had€consistently€been€consulting€with€Mr.€Mehr,€whoÏbelieved€that€it€was€essential€to€support€the€habeas€petition€with€an€expert€declaration€on€theÏstandard€of€care€for€the€representation€of€criminal€defendants€facing€adverse€immigrationÏconsequences.Ìà  àAs€a€result,€Ms.€Fahn€sought€authorization€from€the€Court€of€Appeal€for€funds€to€payÏfor€such€a€declaration.€€The€request€for€fees€was€filed€on€July€22,€2003,€but€as€time€draggedÏon€without€a€ruling,€we€decided€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€might€be€deferring€the€request€untilÏafter€the€petition€was€filed€so€as€to€be€able€to€more€accurately€assess€the€requested€fees.€ÏRegardless€of€the€reason€for€delay,€we€concluded€we€could€not€wait€any€longer€to€file€theÏwrit.€€This€was€because€the€briefing€on€appeal€had€been€completed€on€June€9,€2003,€and€weÏwanted€the€writ€filed€while€the€Court€of€Appeal€maintained€jurisdiction€over€the€case.€€Mr.Ð ,(( ÐMehr€agreed€to€provide€the€declaration€before€the€court€ruled€on€the€request€for€fees,€fullyÏunderstanding€that€we€could€not€pay€him€if€the€request€was€denied.Ìà  àThe€resulting€declaration€was€twelve€pages€long€and€set€out,€in€painstaking€detail€(1)Ïthe€actual€immigration€consequences€of€Daveððs€conviction,€(2)€€why€trial€counselððsÏrepresentation€fell€below€prevailing€professional€norms,€(3)€the€reasonable€probability€ofÏobtaining€a€plea€bargain€with€less€adverse€consequences,€or€failing€that,€of€going€to€trial€withÏa€reasonable€defense,€and€(4)€the€reasonable€probability€that€Dave€would€obtainÏdiscretionary€immigration€relief€if€convicted€of€a€removable€but€non„aggravated€offenseÏsuch€as€an€offer€to€sell€or€transportation.Ìà  àMr.€Mehr€opined€that€trial€counsel€had€provided€ineffective€assistance€because€he€hadÏfailed€to€tell€Dave€that€upon€conviction€he€would€face€permanent€banishment€or€removalÏfrom€the€United€States€with€no€right€to€any€form€of€immigration€relief€and€no€right€toÏnaturalization€in€the€future.€€Mr.€Mehr€believed€trial€counsel€had€also€€affirmativelyÏmisadvised€Dave€by€telling€him€ð ðof€the€ððpossibility€of€deportation,ðð€when,€in€truth€and€inÏfact,€once€the€judgment€of€conviction€became€final,€the€conviction€would€trigger€mandatoryÏremoval.ðð€Finally,€Mr.€Mehr€stated€that€there€was€yet€another€ground€for€a€finding€ofÏconstitutionally€defective€representation€in€trial€counselððs€failure€to€seek€an€alternative€pleaÏbargain€involving€a€non„aggravated€felony.€€In€one€portion€of€his€declaration,€Mr.€MehrÏmade€a€potent€statement€in€language€the€Court€of€Appeal€would€later€repeat€in€its€decision:€Ïð ðI€am€convinced€that€had€[trial€counsel]€€researched€the€immigration€consequences€himselfÏor€if€he€had€made€a€5€minute€phone€call€to€an€immigration€attorney.€.€.€,€he€would€haveÐ ,(( Ðdiscovered€the€actual€immigration€consequences€of€the€plea€in€this€case€and€the€alternativeÏplea€bargains€that€could€have€avoided€or€minimized€the€immigration€consequences.ððÌà  àArmed€with€these€declarations,€Ms.€Fahn€filed€a€habeas€petition€arguing€that€trialÏcounsel€had€provided€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€two€respects:€€(1)€by€failing€toÏadvise€Dave€that€he€would€be€subject€to€mandatory€deportation€and€exclusion;€and€(2)€byÏfailing€to€attempt€to€negotiate€a€plea€to€a€charge€which€would€not€carry€such€disastrousÏimmigration€consequences.Ìà  àAs€for€the€first€claim,€Ms.€Fahn€argued€that€ð ðit€was€a€substantial€misadvisementðð€toÏinform€Dave€ð ðthat€he€òòmightóó€face€deportation,€and€not€to€even€mention€exclusion,€when€inÐ  Ðfact€mandatory€deportation€and€exclusion€from€the€United€States€are€a€certainty€uponÏconviction€under€Health€and€Safety€Code€section€11359.€€Ms.€Fahn€also€argued€there€wasÏdefective€representation€in€trial€counselððs€failure€to€advise€Dave€ð ðof€the€possibility€ofÏpleading€to€an€equivalent€or€even€greater€charge€to€which€mandatory€deportation€does€notÏattach.ðð€€Giving€credence€to€this€last€assertion€was€Daveððs€declaration€that€he€would€haveÏð ðagreed€to€serve€a€greater€sentence€by€pleading€to€a€non„aggravated€felony€such€as€offer€toÏsell€marijuana€if€his€doing€so€would€have€eliminated€the€immigration€consequences€ofÏmandatory€deportation.ðð€€Ms.€Fahn€pointed€out€that€this€was€ð ðdirectly€contrary€to€counselððsÏstated€primary€objective€of€obtaining€the€most€lenient€prison€sentence€possible.ðð€€Ìà  àMs.€Fahn€made€a€convincing€argument€for€prejudice€taking€into€account€manyÏfactors,€including€the€relatively€innocuous€facts,€the€minimal€evidence€against€Dave€asÏopposed€to€that€against€his€brother,€the€primary€actor,€and€the€grave€disparity€in€the€effectiveÐ ,(( Ðpunishment€imposed€on€these€two€defendants.€€€She€used€all€these€factors€to€argue€that€it€wasÏreasonably€probable€that€the€prosecution€would€have€been€willing€to€allow€Dave€to€pleadÏup€to€a€non„aggravated€felony€or,€in€the€alternative,€that€Dave€would€have€had€a€reasonableÏdefense€had€he€gone€to€trial,€a€factor€relevant€to€evaluating€prejudice.€€€(òòIn€re€ResendizóóÐ   Ð(2001)€25€Cal.4th€230.)€€In€the€end,€Ms.€Fahn€argued€that€while€the€trial€attorney€hadÏaccomplished€his€goal€of€obtaining€the€most€lenient€sentence€possible,€his€failure€toÏappreciate€the€most€severe€consequences€to€Daveððs€plea€resulted€in€ñña€ññsituation€where€he€hadÏð ðwon€the€battle€but€lost€the€war.ððÌà  àThe€writ€was€filed€on€September€4,€2003.€€On€September€26,€2003,€the€court€finallyÏissued€a€favorable€ruling€on€the€request€for€expert€fees.€€On€October€7,€2003,€the€SixthÏDistrict€Court€of€Appeal€issued€an€order€to€show€cause€returnable€in€the€appellate€court.€€TheÏcourt€set€a€schedule€for€the€filing€of€a€return€and€traverse,€and€informed€the€parties€theyÏcould€request€oral€argument.€€The€writ€had€become€a€ð ðcauseðð€entitling€the€parties€to€oralÏargument€and€to€a€decision€in€writing€with€reasons€stated.€€(Cf.€òòKowis€v.€Howardóó€(1992)€3Ð  ÐCal.4th€€888,€894„895.)€€This€was€the€second€major€crossroad€in€our€journey.Ìà  àThere€was€also€another€significant€aspect€to€the€courtððs€order€to€show€cause.€€In€mostÏcases€where€the€Sixth€District€issues€an€order€to€show€cause,€it€orders€the€return€and€traverseÏfiled€in€the€superior€court,€thereby€relinquishing€jurisdiction€over€the€writ.€€In€this€instance,Ïhowever,€the€Court€of€Appeal€maintained€jurisdiction€by€ordering€the€return€and€traverseÏfiled€in€the€appellate€court.€€Another€piece€of€luck,€as€it€turned€out.Ìà  àAs€we€shifted€to€the€next€stage€of€the€proceedings€involving€the€filing€of€the€returnÐ ,(( Ðand€traverse,€Ms.€Fahn,€Mr.€Mehr€and€I€continued€to€work€as€a€team€in€an€attempt€toÏmaximize€our€chances€of€success€and€to€come€up€with€the€best€possible€strategies€for€relief.€ÏAs€I€had€from€the€beginning€of€the€case,€I€was€also€able€to€obtain€valuable€advice€and€inputÏfrom€Michael€Kresser,€our€executive€director,€which€I€discussed€with€Ms.€Fahn€or€Mr.€Mehr.€ÏIt€was€truly€a€team€effort.Ô#†îˆYôq#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔÐ   Ðà  àThe€return€filed€by€the€Attorney€General€was€poorly€done.€€It€was€not€only€Ïprocedurally€defective,€but€raised€arguments€which€were€premised€upon€a€misunderstandingÏof€the€relevant€immigration€statutes.€€Ms.€Fahnððs€traverse€took€full€advantage€of€these€errorsÏand€effectively€rebutted€the€Attorney€Generalððs€arguments.€Ìà  àThe€court€held€oral€argument€on€December€9,€2003,€and€Ms.€Fahn€and€Mr.€Mehr,Ïwho€also€attended,€came€away€cautiously€optimistic.€€Their€optimism€was€validated€whenÏthe€court€issued€a€published€decision€on€January€27,€2004,€in€which€it€affirmed€the€judgmentÏon€appeal€but€issued€an€order€to€the€trial€court€ð ðfor€a€reference€hearing€to€take€evidence€andÏresolve€factual€issues€relating€to€defendantððs€legal€advice€at€the€time€of€his€plea.€€A€reportÏshall€be€made€to€this€court€at€the€conclusion€of€the€reference€hearing.ðð€€(òòPeople€v.€Bautistaóó,Ð   Ðòòsupraóó,€115€Cal.App.4th€229,€242.)€€€Citing€the€California€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€inÐ " ÐòòPeople€v.€Totarióó€(2002)€28€Cal.4th€876,€884,€the€Sixth€District€found€that€€ð ðif€DaveððsÐ $  Ðposition€prevails€with€a€referee,€he€has€made€a€persuasive€case:€(1)€that€he€was€not€properlyÏadvised€of€the€immigration€consequences€of€his€plea;€(2)€that€there€was€more€than€a€remoteÏpossibility€that€the€conviction€would€have€one€or€more€of€the€specified€adverse€immigrationÏconsequences,€namely€that€the€INS€has€notified€him€that€he€will€be€deported€when€decisionÐ ,(( Ðon€his€appeal€is€rendered;€and€(3)€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€nonadvisement,€that€is,€it€isÏreasonably€probable€that€he€would€not€have€pleaded€guilty€if€properly€advised.€.€.€ðð€Ï(òòBautistaóó,€òòsupraóó,€115€Cal.App.4th€at€p.€241.)€€Under€òòTotarióó,€these€are€the€factors€a€criminalÐ  Ðdefendant€must€establish€to€prevail€on€a€motion€to€vacate€a€plea€for€lack€of€the€mandatedÏimmigration€advisements€under€Penal€Code€section€1016.5.ññ׃×ññññ׃&×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Pointing€to€trial€counselððsÐ   Ðadmission€that€the€ð ðtechniques€for€defending€against€adverse€consequences€never€crossedÏhis€mind,ðð€the€Sixth€District€went€on€to€acknowledge€the€ð ððð[Ô_Ôt]remendousÔ_Ô€personal€stakesÏinvolved€in€deportation€and€exclusion.ðð€€[Citation.]ðð€€(òòBautistaóó,€òòsupraóó,€115€Cal.App.4th€atÐ  Ðpp.€241„242.)€€The€court€then€concluded:€€ð ðIn€our€case,€considering€the€relatively€innocuousÏfacts€about€the€crime,€(namely€that€Michael€was€the€primary€renter€of€the€locker€and€hadÏmarijuana€at€home€in€his€bedroom,€and€that€Dave€had€no€marijuana€or€contraband,€and€noÏfirearms€or€violence€were€involved),€the€disparate€effects€of€the€sentences€(Michael,€aÏcitizen,€and€Dave,€a€noncitizen,€each€received€16€months€in€state€prison€but€Daveððs€prisonÏterm€will€be€followed€by€deportation,€and€exclusion€and€loss€of€his€ððjob,€his€friends,€hisÏhome,€and€maybe€even€his€children,€who€must€choose€between€their€€[parent]€and€theirÐ   Ðnative€countryðð€[citation],€and€the€facts€that€Dave€.€.€.€was€a€permanent€resident€of€the€UnitedÏStates,€and€had€his€entire€family€here€including€his€parents,€brothers,€wife,€and€two€youngÏchildren,€Dave€may€have€been€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€failure€to€investigate,€advise,€andÏutilize€defense€alternatives€to€a€plea€of€guilty€to€an€ððaggravated€felony.ðððð€€€(òòIdóó.€at€p.€242.)€Ð   ÐIn€reaching€its€decision,€the€court€gave€great€credence€to€Mr.€Mehrððs€declaration,€validatingÏhis€conclusion€that€an€expert€declaration€was€essential€for€success.Ìà  àIn€effect,€the€Sixth€Districtððs€decision€set€a€new€legal€standard€for€representation€inÏcases€involving€legal€immigration€issues.€€It€found€a€viable€claim€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€not€only€for€failure€to€give€proper€advisements€and€for€giving€affirmativeÏmisadvice€(see,€e.g.,€òòPeople€v.€Sorianoóó€(1987)€194€Cal.App.3d€1470;€€òòIn€re€Resendiz,€supraóó,Ð  Ð25€Cal.4th€230,€250),€but€also€for€the€failure€to€attempt€to€utilize€defense€alternatives€to€aÏplea€of€guilty€to€an€aggravated€felony.€€In€this€respect,€the€Court€of€Appeal€went€a€stepÏfurther€than€any€other€previous€California€decision.€€This€was€the€third€crucial€crossroad€inÏDaveððs€case€and€it€set€the€stage€for€the€next€phase€of€the€proceedings.ÌÓ  ÓòòÓÓÔ#†îˆYîŠôbL#ÔÌthe€habeas€petition€„€stage€2Ð @!& Ðback€in€the€trial€court€again€.€.€.óóà @ àÐ f"L ÐÌÓ]^ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔà  àAs€it€had€previously,€the€Court€of€Appeal€maintained€jurisdiction€over€the€writ€byÐ ²$˜  Ðordering€the€trial€court€to€act€as€a€referee€and€report€back€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€followingÏan€evidentiary€hearing.€€This€fact,€in€itself,€was€critical€since€it€meant€that€SDAP€wouldÏremain€counsel€of€record€and€would€therefore€be€in€control€of€Daveððs€representation€for€theÏevidentiary€hearing.€€Yet€another€piece€of€luck.Ð ²,˜(( Ðà  àAt€this€point,€Ms.€Fahn,€Mr.€Mehr€and€I€began€discussions€concerning€the€bestÏapproach€for€Daveððs€representation.€€We€all€believed€it€would€be€essential€to€have€anÏimmigration€expert€who€could€testify€about€the€immigration€consequences€for€any€possibleÏdisposition€of€the€case€as€well€as€the€standard€of€competency€for€the€representation€ofÏnoncitizens€like€Dave.€€In€the€event€that€the€district€attorney€took€the€position€that€it€wouldÏnever€offer€an€alternative€plea,€the€expert€could€also€testify€to€situations€where€an€alternativeÏplea€had€been€offered.€€We€considered€various€scenarios€about€who€should€be€lead€counselÏand€who€we€should€use€for€our€immigration€expert.€€After€much€discussion€back€and€forth,ÏMr.€Mehr€suggested€it€would€be€best€if€we€used€him€as€the€expert€witness€because€he€couldÏtestify€to€personal€experiences€where€a€district€attorney€had€agreed€to€allow€individuals€toÏplead€up€to€a€non„aggravated€felony€to€avoid€the€kind€of€drastic€immigration€consequencesÏDave€was€now€facing.€€We€also€settled€on€a€local€trial€attorney€as€lead€counsel.€€Eric€Geffon,Ïa€former€public€defender€who€had€gone€into€private€practice,€was€well€known€to€SDAP€andÏrespected€for€his€litigation€abilities.€€We€also€believed€that€it€would€be€in€Daveððs€bestÏinterests€to€use€a€local€trial€attorney€who€was€known€by€the€Santa€Clara€County€bench€andÏbar€and€respected€as€a€litigator.€€It€was€decided€that€Ms.€Fahn,€with€her€strong€appellate€skillsÏand€her€intimate€knowledge€of€Daveððs€case,€would€be€best€utilized€as€Mr.€Geffonððs€associateÏin€the€trial€court€proceedings€and€the€person€who€could€prepare€any€necessary€pleadings.€ÏThis€represented€another€major€crossroad€in€the€case€€because€the€ultimate€outcome€couldÏwell€hinge€on€how€the€litigation€was€conducted€during€these€critical€proceedings.Ìà  àThe€emails€between€Ms.€Fahn€and€I€flew€back€and€forth€at€this€stage€with€Mr.€MehrÐ ,(( Ðand€Mr.€Geffon€always€in€the€loop€and€commenting€as€necessary.€€Michael€Kresser€alsoÏcontinued€to€provide€advice.€€Early€on,€Ms.€Fahn€and€I€were€concerned€that€the€case€mightÏnot€be€returned€to€the€trial€judge,€James€Emerson.€€Ms.€Fahn€and€I€believed€that€JudgeÏEmerson€was€an€optimal€choice€as€he€has€shown€himself€to€be€an€independent€judge€whoÏis€not€a€rubber€stamp€for€the€prosecution.€€Consequently,€Ms.€Fahn€wrote€to€Judge€EmersonÏpresuming€that€the€matter€would€be€heard€in€his€court€and€requesting€a€schedulingÏconference.€€It€is€unclear€whether€our€efforts€made€any€difference,€but€in€the€end,€the€caseÏwas€assigned€to€Judge€Emerson,€another€piece€of€good€fortune.Ìà  àPrior€to€the€conference,€Ô#†îˆYô/_#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔwe€considered€various€issues,€including€the€pros€and€cons€ofÐ  Ðfiling€a€trial€brief€and€also€whether€we€should€pursue€a€possible€settlement.€€The€settlement€Ïwould€involve€an€upwards€plea€up€to€an€offer€to€sell€or€transportation€charge€and€servingÏadditional€jail€time€if€necessary.€€As€it€turned€out,€at€the€scheduling€conference,€JudgeÏEmerson€himself€brought€up€the€idea€of€a€settlement.€€However,€the€district€attorneyÏassigned€to€the€case,€Joyce€Ferrisññ€ññññ„ññMetcalf,€flat„out€refused.€€As€a€result,€a€date€for€theÏevidentiary€hearings€was€set€and€we€began€to€prepare€for€the€hearings.€€Ms.€Fahn€and€Mr.ÏGeffon€made€plans€to€meet€with€Dave€to€prepare€him€for€his€testimony.€€Since€Dave€isÏprimarily€Spanish„speaking,€we€also€made€sure€we€would€have€a€Spanish€interpreter€at€theÏhearings.Ìà  àOne€of€the€issues€that€arose€at€this€pre„hearing€stage€was€concern€about€the€judgeððsÏpossible€reluctance€to€make€a€finding€that€the€trial€attorney€had€rendered€ineffectiveÏrepresentation.€€Trial€counsel€was€well„known€and€well„liked€in€the€local€legal€community.€Ð ,(( ÐIn€fact,€at€the€outset,€Ferris„Metcalf€began€raising€concerns€about€the€effect€that€a€findingÏof€ineffective€assistance€would€have€on€his€reputation,€whether€it€could€result€in€state€barÏdisciplinary€proceedings€and€the€fact€that€the€trial€attorney€was€actually€named€in€theÏpublished€opinion€instead€of€being€referred€to€as€ð ðtrial€counsel.ðð€€We€had€suspicions,€laterÏvalidated,€that€this€was€a€feigned€concern€on€her€part.€€Nevertheless,€believing€that€we€mightÏbe€able€to€call€Ferris„Metcalfððs€bluff€and€force€her€into€settlement€negotiations,€Ms.€Fahn,ÏMr.€Geffon€and€I€looked€into€the€procedure€for€deleting€the€trial€attorneyððs€name€from€theÏopinion€which,€though€published,€was€still€in€the€ð ðAdvance€Sheetðð€stage.€€We€contacted€theÏReporter€of€Decisions€who€advised€us€that€we€still€had€time€to€make€the€change€and€told€usÏthe€proper€procedure.€€We€then€made€a€joint€request€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€asking€that€theÏtrial€attorneyððs€name€be€removed€from€the€opinion.€€The€authoring€justice,€Eugene€Premo,Ïgranted€the€request.Ìà  àAround€the€same€time,€Ms.€Fahn€also€checked€state€bar€records€concerningÏdisciplinary€action€for€attorneys€found€to€have€rendered€ineffective€assistance€in€isolatedÏinstances.€€She€submitted€a€memo€to€Judge€Emerson€confirming€her€finding€that€not€a€singleÏlawyer€in€her€search€had€been€subjected€to€public€discipline€based€on€one€such€incident.€€NotÏsurprisingly,€however,€this€made€absolutely€no€difference€in€the€D.A.ððs€position.€TheÏequities€be€damned,€the€D.A.€was€not€willing€to€deal,€though€perhaps€our€efforts€enhancedÏour€credibility€and€good€faith€with€Judge€Emerson.€€In€any€event,€the€D.A.ððs€intransigenceÏled€to€the€next€step€of€this€incredible€journey€ð!ð€€the€contested€evidentiary€hearing.€ÌÔ#†îˆYôšk#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔà  àPrior€to€the€hearing,€Ms.€Fahn€submitted€a€trial€brief€which€defined€the€scope€of€theÐ ,(( Ðreference€hearing,€set€forth€the€petitionerððs€standard€of€proof,€and€focused€the€issues.€€Ms.ÏFahn€sent€drafts€of€the€trial€brief€to€Mr.€Mehr,€Mr.€Geffon€and€me€for€comments€and€inputÏbefore€finalizing€her€draft.€€In€the€brief,€Ô#†îˆYô1w#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔMs.€Fahn€took€the€position€that€the€Court€ofÐ  ÐAppealððs€decision€had€essentially€determined€that€there€had€been€ineffective€assistanceÏcounsel€and€that€the€main€issue€to€be€addressed€by€the€referee€was€the€question€of€prejudice,Ïi.e.,€would€Dave€have€entered€a€guilty€plea€had€he€known€of€the€drastic€immigrationÏconsequences€of€his€plea.€€In€so€arguing,€Ms.€Fahn€relied€in€great€part€on€trial€counselððsÏdeclaration€in€which€he€had€admitted€telling€Dave€he€would€be€deported€ð ðunlessðð€the€INSÏdid€not€place€a€hold€on€him€and€where€he€also€admitted€never€giving€a€thought€to€anÏalternative€plea.Ô#†îˆYôÐx#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYԀР Ðà  àThe€reference€hearing€took€place€over€three€days,€October€28th,€and€December€6thÏand€7th.€€As€is€so€often€the€case€with€ineffective€assistance€claims,€the€trial€attorney€hereÏtestified€for€the€prosecution€as€did€his€partner€and€the€attorney€who€had€represented€Michael.€ÏDaveððs€attorney€testified€he€had€spoken€to€Dave€through€various€interpreters,€including€hisÏown€daughter,€Michaelððs€trial€attorney,€and€Daveððs€mother€and€brother,€Michael.€TrialÏcounsel€testified€he€told€Dave€he€would€be€deported€ð ðfor€sure€if€he€pled€guilty.€.€.€.€ðð€€HisÏgoal€was€to€keep€Dave€ð ðout€of€jail€and€out€of€€sight€of€the€immigration€people€and€then€winÏthe€[Posse€Comitatus]€motion€so€they€would€have€to€dismiss€the€case.ðð€€As€for€an€upwardsÏplea,€trial€counsel€again€admitted€that€it€had€not€crossed€his€mind.€€He€also€attempted€toÏsquelch€this€issue€by€testifying€that€even€if€the€idea€had€occurred€to€him,€the€D.A.€would€notÏhave€agreed€to€an€alternative€plea€and€that€such€a€plea€would€not€have€protected€Dave€fromÐ ,(( Ðthe€adverse€immigration€consequences€at€issue.Ìà  àCorroborating€trial€counselððs€testimony,€his€law€partner€testified€she€had€been€presentÏwhen€Dave€entered€his€plea€and€heard€trial€counsel€tell€Dave€through€an€interpreter€that€heÏwould€be€deported€if€he€pled€guilty.€€This€occurred€outside€the€courtroom€before€the€plea.€ÏMichaelððs€trial€lawyer€testified€that€at€his€first€meeting€with€Dave,€Michael,€and€their€mother,Ïhe€told€Dave€that€the€charge€was€an€aggravated€felony€and€that€he€would€be€deported€if€heÏwere€to€plead€guilty.€€This€attorney€used€Michael€as€interpreter€for€Dave€on€that€occasion.€ÏMichael€did€not€translate€word„for„word,€however€and€the€attorney€realized€early€on€thereÏwas€a€conflict€between€the€two€brothers€and€referred€Dave€to€another€lawyer.€€He€alsoÏadvised€Dave€to€consult€an€immigration€lawyer.Ìà  àRepresentatives€of€the€D.A.ððs€office€testified€that€the€D.A.ððs€policy€did€not€permitÏupward€pleas€to€avoid€immigration€consequences€when€there€is€no€factual€basis€for€theÏalternative€plea.€€In€Daveððs€case,€an€alternative€plea€would€not€have€been€offered€becauseÏthere€was€no€factual€basis€for€offer€to€sell€or€transportation€under€section€11360.€€GiammonaÏtestified,€however,€that€if€he€had€believed€there€was€a€factual€basis€for€a€section€11360Ïcharge€in€Daveððs€case,€he€would€have€considered€the€offer€had€it€been€made€to€him.Ìà  àDuring€these€proceedings,€despite€all€of€this€adverse€testimony€from€the€defenseÏlawyers€and€prosecutors,€Mr.€Geffon€did€some€excellent€trial€work.€€Perhaps€the€mostÏimportant€piece€of€evidence€he€elicited€was€that€there€was€another€police€report€thatÏGiammona€had€never€seen,€which€actually€did€provide€a€factual€basis€for€an€11360€charge.€ÏThis€report€recounted€a€statement€Michael€made€to€a€police€officer,€telling€the€officer€thatÐ ,(( Ðhe€and€Dave€brought€the€marijuana€to€the€storage€locker€togetherÔ#†îˆYô{#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔ.€€Ð  Ðà  àDave€handled€himself€well,€testifying€consistently€with€his€declaration.€€Among€otherÏthings,€he€testified€that€trial€counsel€had€told€him€he€ð ðòòcouldóó€be€deported€if€he€went€toÐ  Ðprison.ðð€€This€was€consistent€with€trial€counselððs€testimony€that€he€had€some€clients€whoÏwent€to€prison€but€were€never€picked€up€by€the€INS.€€Dave€also€testified€that€trial€counselÏdid€not€tell€him€he€would€be€permanently€excluded€and€that€he€could€never€be€naturalizedÏor€return€to€the€United€States.€€Dave€said€he€did€not€know€anything€about€immigration€lawÏand€relied€on€his€attorney€for€advice.€€Had€he€known€deportation€was€mandatory,€he€wouldÏhave€asked€his€attorney€to€get€him€a€longer€sentence€if€it€meant€the€case€could€be€resolvedÏin€a€way€that€avoided€mandatory€deportation.Ô#†îˆYô{‡#ÔÔ‡Šô‹îîˆYÔ€Regarding€communication€with€counsel,€DaveÐ  Ðstated€that€when€he€first€spoke€with€Michaelððs€lawyer,€with€Michael€and€his€mother€present,ÏMichael€translated€for€him.€€Dave€remembered€Michaelððs€lawyer€saying€he€òòcouldóó€beÐ  Ðdeported,€not€that€he€would€be€deported.€€Moreover,€at€the€time,€Dave€thought€thatÏdeportation€was€not€important€because€he€did€not€think€he€was€going€to€prison€and€believedÏheððd€get€a€local€sentence.Ìà  àOnce€again,€Mr.€Mehrððs€assistance€proved€invaluable.€€Not€only€did€he€correct€theÏdistrict€attorneysðð€and€the€defense€lawyersðð€misstatements€concerning€federal€immigrationÏlaw,€but€he€also€testified,€as€anticipated,€about€situations€where€upward€pleas€had€beenÏaccepted€due€to€collateral€immigration€consequences.€€€He€also€decimated€trial€counselððsÏclaim€that€he€had€clients€who€had€gone€to€prison€but€were€never€picked€up€by€the€INS.€€ToÏthe€contrary,€Mehr€testified€there€was€almost€a€100€percent€screening€rate€in€prison€forÐ ,(( Ðpersons€who€are€deportable€and€that€it€is€ð ðvirtually€certain€that€a€person€with€a€deportableÏoffense€would€be€detected,€detainer€would€be€moved€on€and€removal€proceedings€would€beÏcommenced.ððÌà  àAfter€the€close€of€the€evidentiary€phase€of€the€hearing,€the€parties€submitted€proposedÏfindings€of€fact.€€They€both€used€as€headings€the€three€òòTotari€óócriteria€cited€by€the€SixthÐ   ÐDistrict€in€its€initial€published€decision.€€However,€each€party€stated€the€issue€in€a€mannerÏfavorable€to€its€position.€€Thus,€our€proposed€headings€were:€€(1)€that€Dave€was€òònotóó€properlyÐ   Ðadvised€of€the€immigration€consequences€of€is€plea;€(2)€that€there€was€more€than€a€remoteÏpossibility€of€adverse€immigration€consequences;€and€(3)€that€Dave€was€prejudiced€by€theÏimproper€advisements.€€Conversely,€the€prosecutionððs€headings€were€that€Dave€was€properlyÏadvised€and€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€As€there€was€no€factual€disputeÏover€the€adverse€immigration€consequences,€the€differences€in€this€section€were€notÏsignificant.€Ìà  àOn€December€27,€2004,€Judge€Emerson,€acting€as€the€referee,€filed€his€Findings€ofÏFact€with€the€Court€of€Appeal.€€Interestingly,€Judge€Emerson€phrased€his€headings€in€theÏlanguage€used€by€the€district€attorney.€€Thus,€heading€number€one€stated:€€ð ðPetitioner,€DaveÏBautista,€was€properly€advised€of€the€immigration€consequences€of€his€plea.ðð€€HeadingÏnumber€three€stated:€€ð ðThere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€Petitioner€would€still€have€pledÏguilty€to€the€above€named€offense.ðð€Ìà  àIf€intended€as€factual€findings,€these€headings€would€have€been€devastating€to€ourÏcase.€€Yet,€the€individual€factual€findings€listed€under€each€section€were,€for€the€most€part,Ð ,(( Ðfavorable€to€our€position.€€Thus,€it€appeared€that€the€headings€were€not€really€inÏconformance€with€the€actual€findings.€€This€was€another€point€when€emails€and€telephoneÏcalls€flew€amongst€the€team€of€lawyers€who€had€been€working€so€hard€on€Daveððs€case.€€ItÏwas€also€an€occasion€where€the€involvement€of€a€local€trial€attorney€paid€off.€€Based€on€hisÏknowledge€of€Judge€Emerson€and€his€solid€instincts,€Mr.€Geffon€believed€that€JudgeÏEmerson€had€not€intended€these€headings€to€be€factual€findings.€€As€a€result,€€after€muchÏconsultation,€Ms.€Fahn€urged€Mr.€Geffon€to€write€Judge€Emerson€with€a€request€that€heÏclarify€whether€he€intended€the€headings€to€be€factual€findings.€€The€letter€went€out€onÏJanuary€10,€2005,€and€we€held€our€breath€waiting€for€a€response.€€To€our€great€relief,€onÏJanuary€18th,€Judge€Emerson€sent€a€letter€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€in€which€he€stated€that€theÏheadings€did€not€constitute€findings€of€fact,€were€merely€taken€from€the€courtððs€opinion€asÏguidance,€ð ðand€are€simply€meant€to€function€as€descriptive€categories€about€which€the€courtÏgathered€evidence€and€made€factual€findings.ððÌà  àJudge€Emersonððs€letter€put€the€seal€of€finality€on€the€trial€court€proceedings€and€setÏthe€stage€for€the€next€phase€in€the€Court€of€Appeal.€€It€also€represented€another€majorÏcrossroad€in€this€amazing€case.ÌòòÔ#†îˆ/îŠÁ¿¾‹#ÔÓÓÓù_ÓÌthe€habeas€petition€ð!ð€stage€3Ð @%&!! Ðthe€once€and€future€court€of€appealÌÓnœÓÓdÓÔ‡ŠÁ¿‹Xîˆ/ÔóóÌà  àWith€the€trial€court€proceedings€having€concluded,€we€now€faced€an€uphill€battle€toÏwin€the€writ.€While€Judge€Emersonððs€letter€had€removed€what€might€have€beenÏinsurmountable€obstacles,€we€still€had€much€adverse€testimony€to€deal€with€as€well€as€certainÐ Œ-r)) Ðfactual€findings€we€believed€to€be€objectionable.€€Ms.€Fahn€took€the€lead€here.€€She€believedÏwe€needed€to€file€exceptions€to€some€of€Judge€Emersonððs€findings€and€to€seek€a€briefingÏschedule.€€There€was€also€the€matter€of€ensuring€that€Judge€Emersonððs€letter€of€clarificationÏwas€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€After€discussion€of€this€point,€Ms.€Fahn€and€I€agreedÏshe€should€file€a€motion€to€augment€the€record.Ìà  àInitially,€though,€Ms.€Fahn€filed€a€successful€motion€for€the€setting€of€a€briefingÏschedule.€€In€response,€the€court€ordered€the€parties€to€file€simultaneous€letter€briefs.€€Ms.ÏFahn€then€drafted€a€brief€which€she€sent€to€Mr.€Mehr€and€me€for€questions€and€comments.€ÏThe€letter€brief€she€drafted€did€an€excellent€job€of€framing€the€evidence€in€the€best€possibleÏlight€while€remaining€faithful€to€the€record.Ìà  àThe€letter€brief€included€exceptions€to€certain€of€the€refereeððs€findings,€includingÏJudge€Emersonððs€finding€that€Daveððs€trial€attorney€was€ð ðone€of€the€leading€criminal€defenseÏattorneys€in€the€state.ðð€€She€skillfully€used€this€particular€exception€to€undermine€the€districtÏattorneyððs€attempt€to€ð ðcast€the€reference€hearing€as€an€unfair€threat€to€trial€counselððsÏprofessional€well€being.ðð€€Arguing€that€the€prosecutorððs€ð ðposturing€to€arouse€sympathy€forÏcounsel€was€inappropriateðð€she€contended€that€the€finding€as€to€the€trial€attorneyððs€reputationÏwas€irrelevant€and€outside€the€scope€of€the€reference€order.€€Rather,€she€argued,€the€onlyÏrelevant€question€was€whether€trial€counsel€had€adequately€advised€and€defended€against€theÏdevastating€immigration€consequences€attendant€to€Daveððs€plea.€€This€was€a€sound€tacticalÏstrategy€intended€to€keep€the€courtððs€eye€on€the€ball.Ìà  àMs.€Fahn€also€attacked€a€finding€by€Judge€Emerson€that€the€district€attorneyððs€policyÐ ,(( Ðwas€to€exclude€consideration€of€a€defendantððs€citizenship€when€reaching€a€plea€agreement,Ïarguing€that€this€particular€finding€was€unsupported€by€the€evidence.€€In€fact,€as€Ms.€FahnÏpointed€out,€the€prosecutionððs€testimony€was€that€the€District€Attorneyððs€Office€did€allowÏalternative€pleas,€based€on€immigration€considerations,€in€cases€where€defendants€wereÏcharged€with€both€possession€for€sale€and€transportationÔ#†îˆ/Á¿#ÔÔ‡ŠÁ¿‹îîˆ/Ô€€She€directed€the€court€to€testimonyÐ   Ðby€Giammona€conceding€that€he€would€have€considered€such€a€plea€in€this€case€had€thereÏbeen€a€factual€basis€for€a€transportation€charge.€€Of€course,€she€then€cited€the€evidenceÏsupporting€such€a€charge.€€This€was€a€critical€fact€for€the€ineffective€assistance€claim€insofarÏas€it€related€to€the€contention€that€trial€counsel€had€an€obligation€to€attempt€to€seek€anÏalternative€plea.€€Ìà  àOn€the€merits,€Ms.€Fahn€made€strong€arguments€supporting€the€original€habeas€claimsÏand€pointing€to€evidence€at€the€reference€hearing€supporting€those€contentions.€€AmongÏother€things,€she€stressed€trial€counselððs€failure€to€advise€Dave€about€exclusion,€hisÏambiguous€and€erroneous€advisements€about€deportation,€and€his€failure€to€advise€about€theÏexistence€of€an€alternative€plea.€€€On€the€prejudice€component,€Ms.€Fahn€discussed€possibleÏdefense€strategies€for€trial€to€support€Daveððs€testimony€that€had€the€prosecutor€refused€toÏoffer€an€alternative€charge,€he€would€have€gone€to€trial.€€Ìà  àSimultaneously€with€the€filing€of€the€letter€brief,€Ms.€Fahn€filed€a€motion€to€augmentÏthe€record€with€Judge€Emersonððs€clarification€letter.€€When€Justice€Premo€denied€thatÏrequest,€it€caused€some€real€concern€on€our€part€that€the€court€would€reject€Judge€EmersonððsÏletter€entirely.Ð ,(( Ðà  àThe€case€was€orally€argued€on€September€13,€2005.€€Mr.€Mehr€attended€and€onceÏagain,€he€and€Ms.€Fahn€came€away€cautiously€optimistic.€€Again,€we€held€our€breath.€€TheÏcourt€issued€its€decision,€this€time€unpublished,€granting€the€writ€on€September€22,€2005.€Ô#†îˆ/Á¿§#ÔÐ  ÐÔ€ŠÁ¿‹îîˆ/ÔAmong€other€things,€the€decision€first€proved€our€concerns€about€Judge€Emersonððs€letter€toÐ   Ðhave€been€unfounded.€€The€decision,€authored€by€Justice€Premo€with€Justice€RushingÏconcurring,€set€out€very€carefully€Judge€Emersonððs€clarifications€and€factual€findings,Ïexplaining€that€the€headings€were€not€themselves€findings€of€fact.€€Conversely,€the€dissentÏby€Justice€Bamattre„Manoukian,€treated€the€headings€as€factual€findings€and€completelyÏignored€Judge€Emersonððs€letter.€€This€only€goes€to€show€that€a€little€bit€of€luck€in€theÏcomposition€of€our€panel€also€went€a€long€way€toward€the€ultimate€outcome€of€the€case.Ìà  àOn€the€merits,€the€majority€opinion€held€that€Daveððs€trial€attorney€had€providedÏconstitutionally€defective€representation.€€The€court€first€found€that€counsel€did€notÏadequately€advise€Dave€of€the€immigration€consequences.€€Interestingly,€on€this€point,€theÏcourt€held€that€trial€counselððs€€ð ðstatement€in€his€declaration€(that€Dave€would€be€deportedÐ  Ðòòunlessóó€the€INS€did€not€pick€him€up)€and€trial€counselððs€testimony€about€other€imprisonedÐ   Ðclients€who€unaccountably€were€not€picked€up€by€the€INS,€impeaches€the€testimony€thatÏDave€was€properly€advised€and€corroborates€Daveððs€testimony€that€trial€counsel€told€him€heÐ $  Ðòòcouldóó,€not€òòwouldóó,€be€deported.ðð€The€court€also€emphasized€the€fact€that€it€wasÐ &"" Ðð ðuncontroverted€that€trial€counsel€did€not€inform€Dave€he€would€be€permanently€andÏmandatorily€excluded€from€admission€to€the€United€States,€and€that€he€could€never€beÏnaturalized,€return€legally€.€.€.€or€hold€a€green€card.€.€.€.ðð€€In€sum,€the€court€found€that€thereÐ ,(( Ðwas€substantial€evidence€that€trial€counsel€ð ðdid€not€properly€advise€Dave€of€the€immigrationÏconsequences€of€his€plea.ððÌÓÓÔ€¼ìB»‹ŠÁ¿ÔÓ  Óà  àÔ€ŠÁ¿‹»¼ìBÔSignificantly,€the€appellate€court€also€held€that€trial€counsel€ð ðfailed€Dave€in€theÐ  Ðcritical€plea€bargaining€stage€of€the€criminal€processðð€because€an€alternative€plea€to€aÏtransportation€charge€did€not€cross€his€mind€and€because€he€was€unaware€of€the€police€reportÏwhich€contained€a€factual€basis€for€a€transportation€charge.€€Pointing€to€Lawson€andÏGiammonaððs€testimony,€the€court€found€that€had€trial€counsel€called€the€transportationÏevidence€to€Giammonaððs€attention,€ð ðit€is€likely€that€Giammona€would€have€offered€Dave€aÏplea€to€the€transportation€charge.ðð€€€This€would€have€been€a€proper€disposition€of€the€case,Ïthe€court€held,€because€the€charge€was€a€reasonably€related€offense€(òòPeople€v.€Westóó€(1970)Ð  Ð3€Cal.3d€595,€612)€and€because€it€would€have€also€served€the€District€Attorneyððs€statedÏcommitment€ð ðto€considering€charging€decisions€and€plea€negotiations€with€a€concern€forÏoverall€fairness€and€the€desire€that€the€charges€reflect€the€conduct€committed.€€This€is€inÏkeeping€with€ðð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€duty€of€the€prosecutor€.€.€.€to€seek€justice,€not€merely€to€convict.ððÏ[Citation.]ðð€€Even€if€an€alternative€plea€had€not€been€offered,€however,€the€Sixth€DistrictÏfound€Daveððs€stated€willingness€to€go€to€trial€credible€and€adopted€the€defense€strategiesÏpointed€out€by€Ms.€Fahn.€€Thus,€the€court€found€that€Dave€was€prejudiced€by€counselððsÏineffective€performance.€€Another€major€crossroad.€.€.€.ÌÓ¶ÓòòÔ‡îˆ/îŠÁ¿ÔÓ  ÓññÌññback€to€square€one€ð!ð€the€cliffhangerÔ#†ŠÁ¿‹Xîˆ/0¼#ÔóóÐ ($$ ÐÓO¼ÓÓ  Óà  àWith€the€granting€of€the€writ,€SDAPððs€formal€involvement€came€to€an€end,€as€did€Ms.ÏFahnððs€and€Mr.€Mehrððs.€€The€story€is€not€over,€though,€and€the€outcome€remains€in€doubt.€Ð f,L(( ÐMr.€Geffon€continues€as€Daveððs€trial€attorney€and€the€trial€date€is€fast€approaching.€ÏHowever,€the€district€attorney€has€adamantly€refused€to€offer€a€transportation€or€offer€to€sellÏcharge.€€This,€despite€Lawson€and€Giammonaððs€testimony€that€such€pleas€are€routinelyÏconsidered€so€long€as€there€is€a€factual€basis€for€the€charge.€€This,€despite€the€fact€that€thereÐ   Ðòòisóó€a€factual€basis€for€the€charge€in€this€case.€€It€seems€the€D.A.€is€bitter€over€losing€the€writÐ   Ðand,€as€in€the€cases€highlighted€in€Mr.€Tulskyððs€recent€San€Jose€Mercury€News€series,€isÏonce€again€adhering€to€a€€ð ðwin„at„all„costðð€philosophy.€€Justice€has€taken€a€back€seat.Ìà  àNevertheless,€Daveððs€story€is€an€eloquent€tribute€to€what€can€be€accomplished€by€gritÏand€effort,€teamwork€and€diligence,€and€true€dedication€to€the€client.€€Here,€where€the€recordÏdidnððt€hold€a€clue,€as€events€unfolded,€the€record€on€appeal€became€almost€insignificantÏwhen€compared€to€the€true€story€brought€to€life€in€the€writ€petition€and€the€subsequentÏevidentiary€hearing.Ìà  àThis€case€is€also€a€true€testament€to€the€commitment€and€generosity€of€the€attorneysÏinvolved€and€demonstrates,€in€the€most€positive€light,€the€role€that€SDAPððs€status€as€counselÏof€record€can€play.€€When€I€spoke€to€Ms.€Fahn€as€I€prepared€this€article,€she€described€thisÏcase€as€an€amazing€adventure€ð!ð€€and€it€was€for€all€of€us.€€In€the€end,€thanks€to€each€memberÏof€this€remarkable€team,€the€law€in€California€has€been€changed€for€the€better€and€Dave€atÏleast€has€a€fighting€chance€to€remain€in€this€country€with€his€family€where€he€belongs.