People v. Ruiz CA2/8

Filed 9/20/24 P. v. Ruiz CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B330801

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA098500) v.

JORGE ALEXANDER RUIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Maria Andrea Davalos, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Mario Acosta, Jr. and Mario Acosta, Jr. for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Jorge Alexander Ruiz appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 4, 2007, at a hearing at which he was represented by counsel and assisted by a Spanish language interpreter, defendant pled guilty to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). He was sentenced to a low term of 16 months in prison with credit for 44 days of presentence custody credits (30 actual, 14 conduct). A second count for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)) was dismissed in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. The sentencing minute order indicates that defendant, at the time, had three other pending felony matters (case Nos. TA083110, TA075971 and BA294307) and that his sentence would be run concurrent to all three. During the plea colloquy, the court told defendant that if he was not a citizen of the United States, his conviction in the case “will cause your deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States and denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States,” commonly referred to as a Tahl waiver. (In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.) Defendant also confirmed, on the record, that he had discussed the signed plea form with his counsel, which also included a Tahl waiver, and that he had no questions for the court. After serving his sentence, defendant was deported in December 2008 and then illegally reentered the United States sometime in 2010. Defendant unsuccessfully applied for asylum.