P. v. Ocampo

Filed 6/14/06 P. v. Ocampo CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daniel J. Didier, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, David Delgado-Rucci and Jennifer A. Jadovitz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Ausencio Ocampo appeals from an order denying his motion under Penal Code section 1016.5[1] to withdraw his 1996 guilty plea to possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) He contends the trial court failed to advise him adequately of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, as required by section 1016.5. Defendant also complains he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to explain that entering a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance would result in his deportation. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I

Facts and Procedural Background

On October 10, 1996, defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) A deputy public defender represented defendant and a Spanish interpreter assisted him in filling out a change of plea and waiver of rights form, commonly referred to as a Tahl form.

At the change of plea hearing, defendant acknowledged to the trial court he signed the Tahl form and placed his initials next to several printed advisements, including the following: â€