In a few instances, a noncitizen must reduce the total amount of time spent in custody on account of one or more convictions.[13]  If a conviction is vacated in its entirety, or a sentence is vacated or reduced, that should eliminate the actual custody time attributable to that conviction and sentence from being counted for this purpose.

[13] See Chapter 6, infra.

Lower Courts of Ninth Circuit

CAL POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA UNDER PENAL CODE 1018 " ABUSE OF DISCRETION
People v. Perez, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2015 WL 332048 (4 Dist. Jan. 27, 2015) (the trial courts denial of a motion to withdraw a plea, under Penal Code 1018, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and will be set aside where no evidence was submitted in opposition to the motion, and the trial court gave no reason for its denial). The court reasoned: A trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is final absent an abuse of discretion. ( People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1254, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 784, 947 P.2d 1321.) Ordinarily, [w]e presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.]' [Citation.] ( People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 943, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 261 P.3d 243.) Additionally, if the ruling below is correct upon any theory of the law applicable to the case, it must be sustained regardless of the considerations which may have moved the court to its conclusion. [Citation.] [Citation.] ( People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) These principles do not save the court's ruling in this matter. The reason People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th 856, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 261 P.3d 243 is not helpful is because there was only the motion and its exhibits for the court to consider. The prosecution did not file an opposition, so there was no declaration from trial counsel disputing defendant, his mother, or his sister's declarations concerning what counsel was told about defendant's immigration status or what statements he made concerning the effect of defendant's conviction on defendant's immigration status. Of course the court also was aware the change of plea form informed defendant of immigration consequences, but that fact does not mean defendant's counsel did not negate the effect of that advisement by telling defendant the advisement is wrong and his guilty plea would not require his deportation. (See In re Resendiz, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 235, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 19 P.3d 1171.) The discretion exercised by a court is not a capricious or arbitrary discretion, but an impartial discretion, guided and controlled in its exercise by fixed legal principles. It is not a mental discretion, to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice. (Bailey v. Taaffe (1866) 29 Cal. 422, 424.) An exercise of discretion is subject to reversal on appeal where no reasonable basis for the action is shown. (Common Cause v. Stirling (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 518, 522, 195 Cal.Rptr. 163.) (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn., supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 160, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 636.) The court in this matter gave no basis, much less a reasonable basis for its decision denying defendant's motion. (Id. at ___.) Cal Crim Def 20.27