A California appellate court has upheld the denial of an appeal by Eriberto Reyna, who sought to vacate his first-degree murder conviction. The court ruled that Reyna was ineligible for relief under state law because he was still on parole at the time of his motion. This decision impacts Reyna's legal status and highlights the complexities of criminal convictions and immigration consequences.

Reyna, who was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for his role in a 1993 murder, filed a motion in 2024 after being released from prison. He argued that he did not fully understand the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. However, the trial court denied his motion, stating that he was still on parole, which constitutes being in constructive custody.

This ruling is significant as it addresses the intersection of criminal law and immigration issues, particularly for individuals who may face deportation due to their criminal convictions. The case underscores the challenges faced by those navigating the legal system after serving time for serious offenses.

Background

Eriberto Reyna was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon in 1993. He accepted a plea deal, which led to his conviction for first-degree murder. As part of the agreement, the other charges were dismissed, and he received a sentence of 25 years to life.

After serving time, Reyna was released on parole in August 2023. However, he was taken into immigration custody shortly thereafter. In April 2024, Reyna filed a motion to vacate his conviction under California Penal Code section 1473.7, claiming he did not understand the adverse immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court appointed counsel to assist him in this matter.

In March 2025, Reyna's attorney submitted a supplemental motion, indicating that Reyna had been deported and was no longer contesting his removal. Despite his absence, the court held a hearing on the motion in August 2025, where the prosecution argued that Reyna was still under parole supervision, thus ineligible for relief.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision. The judges noted that Reyna remained on parole, which the law considers as being in constructive custody. The court cited a previous case, stating, "people on parole are not eligible for relief pursuant to section 1473.7."

The court's opinion indicated that Reyna's appeal did not reveal any errors in the trial court's judgment. The ruling stated, "We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm." This affirmation means that Reyna's conviction and the consequences stemming from it remain intact.

Impact

This ruling has broader implications for individuals in similar situations who seek to vacate convictions based on misunderstandings related to immigration consequences. The court's decision reinforces the idea that individuals on parole cannot seek relief under the specified section of the law, which could deter others from filing similar motions if they are still under parole supervision.

Moreover, this case highlights the complexities surrounding plea agreements and their long-term effects on defendants, particularly those who may face deportation. It raises awareness about the need for legal counsel to ensure defendants fully understand the ramifications of their pleas, especially in cases involving serious charges like murder.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Reyna plans to appeal this decision further. However, given the ruling's emphasis on the legal interpretation of parole and custody, any future appeals may face significant challenges.