Message
×
loading..

People v. Valadez CA4/3 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 7/1/16 P. v. Valadez CA4/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                         G052774
    v.                                                   (Super. Ct. No. 97CF0042)
    MANUEL ALCALA VALADEZ,                                                 OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from an order made after judgment of the Superior Court of Orange
    County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed.
    Caroline R. Hahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
    Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    *               *               *
    In July 1997, defendant Manual Alcala Valadez pleaded guilty to simple
    possession and possession for sale of heroin and cocaine, and admitted various sentence
    enhancements. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd, (a), 11351, 11370, subds. (a) & (c);
    Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) The court sentenced him to two years in prison.
    In September 2015, defendant filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea on the
    grounds that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the plea;
    (2) the court did not properly advise him of the potential immigration consequences of
    the plea; (3) the court failed to provide a Spanish language interpreter, and (4) a writ of
    coram nobis provided an avenue for granting the requested relief.
    Defendant submitted a declaration in support of the motion which stated:
    “Neither my Public Defender nor the court advised me that entering such a plea would
    have immigration consequences for me. I never would have pled guilty to the drug
    charge and agreed to this disposition if I had known that it would affect my immigration
    status. My primary language at the time was Spanish. I did not speak, read, write, or
    understand English fluently at the time. I did not have an interpreter present at the time
    to translate the information into Spanish. [¶] . . . Had the court advised me of the
    immigration consequences, at least I would have consulted with an immigration attorney
    and had the opportunity of obtaining a safe disposition to my conviction, thereby still
    pleading to charges that would not have had any immigration consequences. The court
    also failed to notify me that I could be deported or be subject to removal proceedings
    upon entering a guilty plea.”
    The court denied the motion and found: (1) it lacked jurisdiction to
    entertain the ineffective assistance claim and, besides, there was no deficient performance
    or resulting prejudice; (2) defendant was properly advised by the court and, in any event,
    he made no showing of prejudice; (3) the record did not support the claim defendant did
    not understand English or the proceedings; and (4) defendant was not eligible for relief
    by writ of coram nobis. Defendant timely appealed.
    2
    We appointed counsel to represent defendant. She filed a brief which set
    forth the facts and the procedural history of the case. She did not argue against
    defendant, and advised she had not found any issues to argue on his behalf. (People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    ; Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
    .) However, to
    assist us in our independent review, she suggested we consider whether the court abused
    its discretion under Penal Code section 1016.5 by denying the motion.
    We notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
    He filed a one page response which contained no legal argument and simply requested
    “my appeal go forward, by my Counsul [sic], and continue and proceed without delay,”
    and that “my conviction be reexamined and my plea of guilty be withdrawn.”
    DISCUSSION
    We reviewed the record according to our obligations under 
    Wende, supra
    ,
    
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    and 
    Anders, supra
    , 
    485 U.S. 738
    , considered the issues suggested by
    counsel, and found no arguable issues on appeal.
    Before accepting a guilty plea, the court must advise the defendant of three
    specific, potential immigration consequences: deportation, exclusion, and denial of
    naturalization. (Pen. Code, § 1016.5, subd. (a).) The advisements must appear on the
    record, but they need not be given orally by the judge in open court. Instead, a validly
    executed written waiver is a proper substitute for a verbal admonishment. (In re Ibarra
    (1983) 
    34 Cal. 3d 277
    , 285-286, overruled on other grounds in People v. Mosby (2004) 
    33 Cal. 4th 353
    , 360-361; People v. Ramirez (1999) 
    71 Cal. App. 4th 519
    , 521-522.)
    To prevail on a motion to withdraw a plea under Penal Code section
    1016.5, a defendant must establish: (1) the court failed to advise him as required; (2)
    there is more than a remote possibility that his conviction would have one or more of the
    specified adverse immigration consequences; and (3) had he been properly advised, he
    would not have pled guilty. (People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 
    23 Cal. 4th 183
    ,
    192, 199-200.) We review the court’s denial for abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 192.)
    3
    Paragraph 8 of the guilty plea form in this case contained the three required
    immigration advisements, separately initialed by defendant in the box provided. Further
    paragraph 22, directly above defendant’s signature, recites, “I declare under penalty of
    perjury that I have read, understood, and personally initialed each item above and
    discussed them with my attorney, and everything on this form is true and correct.” And,
    as the court found, “There is no support, however, for the allegation that Defendant did
    not understand English and did not understand the proceedings.”
    All told, the record before us shows defendant read and understood the
    guilty plea form, including the immigration advisements, and he discussed them with his
    attorney before he pleaded guilty. Because it appears defendant was properly advised of
    the immigration consequences, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
    motion to vacate his guilty plea. We need not reach the alternative grounds for denial.
    DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed.
    THOMPSON, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    ARONSON, ACTING P. J.
    FYBEL, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: G052774

Filed Date: 7/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021