How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section?

It has been held that "the legislative purpose of ensuring a defendant is aware of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea . . . is best and most reasonably served by construing the word 'court' as used in section 1016.5 to refer to the tribunal in which defendant enters his plea. Under this construction, the advisement referred to therein may be given through any of the numerous individuals acting on behalf of that tribunal, including the judge [or] counsel . . . So long as the legislative purpose is advanced by having some person acting on behalf of the tribunal actually advise defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea and that advice is reflected 'on the record,' the actual adviser is immaterial. . . . [] . . . [] Nor need the statutory admonition be given orally. It is sufficient if . . . the advice is recited in a plea form and the defendant and his counsel are questioned concerning that form to ensure that

Page 8

defendant actually reads and understands it." (People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 535-536.)