P. v. Ducreay
Filed 6/20/06 P. v. Ducreay CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCELLUS FRANKLIN DUCREAY, Defendant and Appellant. | A110476 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 156141) |
I.
Appellant Marcellus Franklin Ducreay (appellant) appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis (Petition) complaining that he was not adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petition, and therefore, affirm.
II.
On May 31, 1994, a criminal complaint was filed by the San Francisco District Attorney's Office charging appellant with having violated Health and Safety Code sections 11352, subdivision (a) (sale, transportation, furnishing of cocaine base) and 11351.5 (possession for sale of cocaine base). The complaint also alleged that the first noted violation was subject to the enhancements set forth in Penal Code sections 1203.073, subdivision (b)(7) and 1203.076.
On June 9, 1994, appellant entered a guilty plea to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). At the hearing when the plea was taken, appellant was advised of the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering the plea, and of the legal consequences of his plea. In return for his guilty plea, it was agreed that appellant would be placed on three years probation, subject to his serving six months in county jail. Other conditions of probation were also imposed and accepted by appellant, which are not directly relevant to this appeal. Also, the agreement called for the dismissal of the remaining count by the prosecution.
Important to the issue raised by the Petition, in reciting for the court the terms of the plea agreement, appellant's counsel noted:
â€
