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 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.