However, in 2013, the court clarified that it’s ruling in Padilla did not apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions became final before it decided on Padilla. Fortunately, in the state of California, these protections have been in effect for at least twenty years prior to the Padilla decision. Prior to the Padilla decision the California Supreme Court in the Soriano decision helped that a non-citizen defendant must advise of the potential adverse immigration consequences that may attach to a criminal conviction.

People v. Barocio, (1989) (failure to file judicial recommendation against deportation or seek 364-day sentence is ineffective assistance of counsel). This was also the holding in People v. Bautista (2004) (counsel correctly told the defendant that he “would” be deported for possession of sale conviction, but failure to attempt to plead up to “offer to sell” or “transportation” may be ineffective assistance of counsel). Since People v. Soriano has been binding on criminal counsel and state courts since 1987, the “new rule” announced by Padilla for other jurisdictions was already the “rule” in California for the prior 25 years. People v. Soriano merely reached the correct result 25 years earlier than Padilla. Additionally, People v. Soriano was expressly based not only on the Sixth Amendment but also on Article I, §15 of the California State Constitution. States must enforce minimum federal constitutional standards but are free to adopt additional protections. (Reynolds v. Superior Court) (1974).