At her trial, there鈥檚 no question that Angela Hernandez signed a form acknowledging that she could be deported after a criminal conviction. An interpreter certified that they had translated the whole form and her attorney was confident Hernandez understood it.
But the said in a ruling handed down Thursday that it鈥檚 not enough to check a form鈥檚 boxes 鈥� a defendant has to 鈥渕eaningfully understand鈥� the legal consequences of a plea deal.
鈥淲ere it not for these errors,鈥� the court found, 鈥渢here is a reasonable probability that she would have rejected the plea offer and either attempted to negotiate a plea with less dire immigration consequences or taken her case to trial.鈥�
Hernandez was charged with two drug offenses in Kern County in 2013. She was a citizen of Mexico but had been a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for 19 years. She was 55-years-old at the time of her arrest, with a father, husband, kids and grandkids in the U.S.
At trial, she pleaded guilty and put her initials on a form that reads: 鈥淎LIEN STATUS: I understand that if I am not a Citizen of the United States, my guilty or no contest plea will result in my deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, and denial of naturalization under the laws of the United States. Deportation is mandatory for some offenses. I have fully discussed this matter with my attorney and understand the serious immigration consequences of my plea.鈥�
Hernandez said on appeal that she agreed to the form but didn鈥檛 understand its consequences.
鈥淲ell, because if he鈥檚 my attorney and he鈥檚 telling me, 鈥楽ign here, initial here,鈥� I鈥檓 going to sign,鈥� Hernandez said in court, according to the ruling. 鈥淚 was really nervous then too.鈥�
Her plea sent her to jail for 27 days of a 180 day sentence. Two years later, she obtained permission from the state probation department to travel to Mexico. When she returned to Los Angeles International Airport, she was detained by a customs official, who initiated removal proceedings against her.
Since then, Hernandez has been fighting to overturn her past conviction. She argued that her lawyer had been ineffective, something a trial judge and an appeals court both ruled against. But the Supreme Court found legal errors and reversed the decision.
The Supreme Court found that, though Hernandez said 鈥測es鈥� when she agreed to the potential deportation provision in her plea, she didn鈥檛 demonstrate that she understood it with her actions.
鈥淗er decisions to seek and obtain permission from the probation department to leave the United States, to travel to Mexico, and to attempt to lawfully reenter through a port of entry support an inference that she did not 鈥榤eaningfully understand鈥� the immigration consequences of her conviction,鈥� wrote Justice Joshua Groban in the majority opinion.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation urged the court to uphold Hernandez鈥檚 conviction. But groups of public defenders and immigration advocates filed briefs arguing that California courts had inconsistent policies regarding how they notify defendants about immigration-related consequences of guilty pleas.
The court directed the 5th District Court of Appeals to send Hernandez鈥檚 case back to trial court and vacate her convictions.
In a partial concurrence and partial dissent, Justice Carol Corrigan called for Hernandez to 鈥渕ake a fuller presentation鈥� on remand to a lower court.
鈥淭he trial court can resolve factual and credibility issues, then make a proper ruling considering all the relevant evidence,鈥� Corrigan wrote. 鈥淚f the record produced shows that legal error damaged her ability to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of her plea and accept them, the motion should be granted. 鈥�
___
This story was originally published by and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
