4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2025/11/05 Morning Session - Nov 05, 2025

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2025/11/05 Morning Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 2h 33m 7 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Who are the judges and counsel introduced at the beginning of the oral argument?

Unknown 8:59

Yeah.

Unknown 12:30

All right.

Justice Carol Codrington 12:38

Good morning, everyone. Please be seated.

Justice Carol Codrington 12:48

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Oral Argument. It is my great pleasure to introduce you to my colleagues on this pan panel. First to my right is Justice Richard Fields.

Justice Michael Fuse 13:02

Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Justice Carol Codrington 13:03

To my left is Justice Michael Rafael. Good morning. My name is Justice Carol Codrington and I will be presiding over this panel and the next one. There is one case for this panel's consideration, and when I call your name, kindly make your appearances for the record and for the clerk. Um calling number eleven, people versus Christian Jimenez.

Sabrina Damas 13:28

Good morning. This is uh my name is Sabrina Damas, I am the petitioner's counsel on this matter.

Justice Carol Codrington 13:36

And Miss Dunas, can you please spell your name?

Sabrina Damas 13:40

D A M A S T

Justice Carol Codrington 13:47

And for the respondent. Good morning, may

Steve Odding 13:49

it please the court. Steve Odding, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the people. Steve Odding, O E-T-T-I-N-G.

Justice Carol Codrington 13:59

Thank you. And um Miss Connis, you have fifteen minutes on the clock. Would you like to reserve some time for rebuttal?

Sabrina Damas 14:09

Uh yes, Your Honor, if I could please reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

Justice Carol Codrington 14:12

Thank you. You are on the clock, you may proceed.

Sabrina Damas 14:16

Thank you, Your Honors. Uh Your Honors, I would like to address a few points that the court had made in its tentative ruling, and then of course if the panel has any additional questions for me, I would welcome them. Uh drawners. The panel's tensitive decision recognizes a number of very crucial facts that are contained in my client's declaration. Facts about whether or not he misunderstood the mandatory nature of the immigration consequences because of the non-mandatory language used in the ten sixteen point five advisals in the matter. As well as um his ties to the United States, his family ties, his work ties, the number of years he'd lived in the country, things of that nature. Um the court is concerned, I believe, and it's tentative by the lack of additional corroboration for those statements, um, in what would be characterized, I think, otherwise, um, by at least by the respondents in their brief as a self serving declaration.

Sabrina Damas 15:15

I'd like to just bring the court's attention to a few cases that have come out since Ruiz, which is the case that really discussed the impact of using non-mandatory language um in the ten sixteen point five advisals and whether or not that meets the threshold for meaningful understanding under fourteen seventy three point seven. Um, but I'd also like to to bring the court's attention to some very specific language in the Supreme Court's decision in Espinosa about declarations. Um in Espinosa, the court specifically said that the Court of Appeals had erred by disregarding Mr. Espinosa's declaration on the basis that that it did not constitute objective evidence. Uh we made clear in Vivar that a defendant's declaration is one form of objective evidence relevant to a prejudicial error inquiry, and that can be found your honors at Espinosa fourteen Cal Fifth at page three hundred and twenty two.

Sabrina Damas 16:10

I point that out, Your Honor, because I think here It's a real um theme in the tentative from the cord. The fact that my client outlined his family ties, the fact that he outlined that he was living in the United States since he was a a young minor, the fact that he outlined the employment he had at the time of his plea is objective evidence under the Supreme Court's precedent. He isn't required, as I think the court suggested, for example, to provide pay stubs from his employer at the time. The declaration in and of itself is considered objective evidence of those ties.

Justice Michael Fuse 16:47

Yes, Council, um I I don't really have an issue with that, but my my concern is Just saying I worked at Forever Twenty One doesn't tell us anything about his connection. He could work there five days for all we know, and he has the burden. That's the issue we really have with what the defendant had to say, including his relationships. He didn't really tell us the nature of the relationships either. But like when you make when you use the pace of example, my first thought was, That's fine, he said he worked for Forever Twenty One.