P. v. Rodriguez
Filed 12/15/08 P. v. Rodriguez CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON SOLORIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | C058028 (Super. Ct. No. CR68079) |
In August 1982, defendant Ramon Solorio Rodriguez went to a Sacramento car dealership and got a test drive in a Datsun 280ZX accompanied by the salesman. During the drive, defendant pulled onto a dirt road, pointed a gun at the salesman, told him to get out of the car, said he was going to take the car, and threatened the salesman not to report the theft. Nevertheless, the salesman immediately reported the crime and gave a physical description of defendant.
About three months later, a Humboldt State University Police Officer saw the stolen Datsun 280ZX on campus. Defendant was arrested when he came up to the car, unlocked it, and put his books in the trunk. A gun cartridge was found in the car. The car salesman positively identified defendant in a photo lineup as the thief. Defendants landlord reported that defendant had been in Sacramento in August 1982 and had started driving the Datsun 280ZX that month.
In 1984, defendant pled guilty to robbery and admitted that he had personally used a firearm. He was sentenced to the low term of two years for the robbery, plus two years for the firearm enhancement.
In November 2007, defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Conviction on the ground that he had not been advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. (Pen. Code, 1016.5.) According to defendant, if he had been informed of those consequences, he would not have pled guilty; instead, he would have proceeded to trial and defended upon mistaken identity and insufficient evidence.
The People conceded they could not establish that defendant had been advised of the immigration consequences of the plea, and further conceded he was experiencing an actual immigration consequence as he was currently involved in removal proceedings. However, the People argued that defendant failed to establish he would not have entered the plea if he had been advised of the immigration consequences.
The trial court denied the motion, finding on the facts submitted there is insufficient evidence to show that had [he] been properly advised under the circumstances that [defendant] would not have pleaded guilty. That he was facing a significant prison term. He accepted the low term offer and the low term on the enhancement and he did that to avoid a longer prison sentence. And based upon that, the Court is not going to find that he has been prejudiced by the failure to properly advise him under [Penal Code section] 1016.5.
Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
RAYE , J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
