P. v, Baeza CA2/6

Filed 8/19/25 P. v, Baeza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B341149 (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiff and Respondent, F000274308001) (San Luis Obispo County) v.

ISMAEL CHAMONICA BAEZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ismael Chamonica Baeza appeals the denial of his motion under Penal Code1 section 1473.7 to vacate his conviction for stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 3, 1998, a complaint charged appellant with felony stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The following day, appellant pleaded no contest to the stalking charge pursuant to a plea agreement. The resisting a peace officer charge was dismissed.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant was to receive probation and serve 180 days in county jail imposed in two prior misdemeanor cases for which he was already on probation. The prosecutor stated that “if [appellant] were to return to this country illegally, he would violate the terms and conditions of his felony case.” During the plea colloquy, the court advised appellant: “If you are not a citizen of the United States, you are hereby advised that your conviction of the offense to which you are pleading no contest will result in your deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States and denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States? Do you understand that?” Appellant replied: “Oh, yes.” A Notice of Custody Determination dated September 23, 1998 provided appellant would be detained by Immigration and Naturalization Service. Appellant acknowledged receipt on November 30, 1998. On December 31, 1998, an immigration judge denied appellant’s application for voluntary departure and ordered him removed to Mexico. On March 19, 2002, the court revoked probation and sentenced appellant to 16 months in prison. The appellate record does not contain a transcript of the proceeding. The docket shows appellant admitted the probation violation. The minute order is silent as to any immigration advisement. In 2024, appellant filed a motion to vacate conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. The motion included a declaration by appellant, which was later amended, and several exhibits, including character reference letters. The court denied the motion. The court concluded appellant had not shown the stalking conviction was currently causing or had the potential to cause adverse immigration