Filed 6/29/17 P. v. Carrillo CA5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GEORGE ANDRES CARRILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073276

(Super. Ct. No. BF102241A)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John W. Lua, Judge.
Sara E. Coppin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
George Andres Carrillo filed a petition seeking to have his 2003 conviction vacated because he was not advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. The record reveals Carrillo was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea before his plea was accepted by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In 2003, Carrillo was charged with possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), misdemeanor driving without a valid driver’s license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), and an infraction for driving without proof of financial responsibility (Veh. Code, § 16028, subd. (a)). Defendant entered into a plea agreement which resulted in him pleading guilty to possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. The remaining counts were dismissed. He was placed on probation on the condition he spend one year in jail.
In 2015, Carrillo filed a petition to vacate the judgment pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code section 1016.5 (section 1016.5). Subdivision (a) of this section requires the trial court to inform a defendant before accepting a plea of the potential immigration consequences if the defendant pleads guilty to a crime, including deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. Section 1016.5, subdivision (b) provides that if a trial court fails to advise a defendant of the potential immigration consequences of his plea, the court must vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea if the defendant makes a motion to do so. Carrillo’s 2015 petition was made pursuant to section 1016.5 subdivision (b) and alleged he did not recall being informed of the immigration consequences of his plea.
The prosecutor orally opposed the motion at the hearing, and the trial court denied the motion finding that Carrillo was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. This appeal is from the order denying Carrillo’s petition.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting that after thoroughly reviewing the record she could not identify any arguable issues. By letter dated September 9, 2016, we invited Carrillo to inform this court of any issues he wished us to address. Carrillo did not respond to our letter.
After completing our review of the record, we agree there are no arguable issues in this case. The clerk’s transcript from the 2003 plea hearing indicates that Carrillo was advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. The reporter’s transcript from this hearing establishes the trial court provided Carrillo with the following immigration advisement:
“And, sir, if you’re not a citizen of the United States, this conviction will result in your being deported, in your being denied naturalization under the laws of the United States, and in you being denied re-entry to the United States.”
Carrillo responded that he understood the immigration consequences of his plea. Clearly, the trial court complied with the requirements of section 1016.5, subdivision (a) when it accepted Carrillo’s plea, and he was not entitled to relief pursuant to the provisions of section 1016.5, subdivision (b).
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition is affirmed.