People v. Salinas CA2/2

Filed 2/13/25 P. v. Salinas CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B336473

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA149506) v.

ALEJANDRO ARTURO SALINAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Henry J. Hall, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Christopher Lionel Haberman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________________

The trial court summarily denied appellant Alejandro Arturo Salinas’s motion to vacate his conviction. (Pen. Code,1 § 1473.7.) We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the motion and accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant was charged with two counts of second degree robbery in violation of section 211. In December 1997, appellant pleaded no contest to both counts. The court found a factual basis for the plea. It sentenced appellant to a total of four years in state prison, consisting of the mid-term of three years on the first count plus one-third the mid- term on the second count, to be served consecutively. In October 2023, long after appellant had been released from prison, appellant, through counsel, moved pursuant to section 1473.7 to vacate his conviction. He asserted that, when he entered into the plea, he did not understand the immigration consequences and that neither the trial court nor his attorney advised him that his plea would result in mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States. Appellant’s declaration accompanying his motion stated that he was born in El Salvador in 1971 and emigrated to the United States when he was about 18 years old, where he was granted lawful permanent residency. Each of his eight siblings, as well as his elderly father, are citizens of the United States and continue to reside in California. Appellant declared that, after his 1997 arrest, he was pressured by his attorney to take the plea deal without discussion of the deportation consequences. Immediately after appellant’s release from prison, he was transferred to immigration authorities and deported to El Salvador, where he has been living since. Appellant stated that he has never attempted to enter the United States unlawfully. Finally, appellant declared that, if he had understood that