California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 2025 No. E083546Unpublished
Filed 9/15/25 P. v. Garcia CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083546
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1802612)
DANIEL GARCIA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jennifer R. Gerard,
Judge. Affirmed.
Tracy R. LeSage, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel Rogers, Amanda Lloyd and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Daniel Garcia appeals from the denial of his motion to
vacate his plea pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1473.7. On appeal, defendant contends
the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea because
14 Cal.5th at p. 319.) If we find he proved lack of understanding, we then independently
review whether his lack of understanding constituted prejudicial error. (Id. at p. 321.)
“When courts engage in independent review, they should be mindful that ‘“[i]ndependent
review is not the equivalent of de novo review . . . .”’ [Citation.] An appellate court may
not simply second-guess factual findings that are based on the trial court’s own
observations.” (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 527.) Instead, “[w]hen courts engage in
independent review, they must give deference to the trial court’s factual determinations if
they are based on ‘“‘the credibility of witnesses the [trial court] heard and observed.’”’”
(Espinoza, at p. 320; Vivar, at pp. 527-528.) “But when the trial court’s findings ‘derive
entirely from written declarations and other documents,’ the trial court and the reviewing
court ‘“are in the same position,”’ and no deference is owed.” (Espinoza, at p. 320.)
Here, there was no testimony from either defendant or his trial counsel, but entirely from
defendant’s written self-serving declaration, plea form, immigration addendum form, plea
hearing, and other documents.
C. Analysis
Defendant primarily based his section 1473.7 motion on the asserted errors of his
court-appointed counsel. Defendant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that defense counsel committed an error that damaged his ability to understand,
9
defend against, or knowingly accept the immigration consequences of his conviction.
The main evidence defendant relies on to support his claim is his declaration, which was
uncorroborated, self-serving, and not credible.
Addressing defendant’s declaration, we note that he omits any reference to the
separate immigration consequences addendum he had signed. The addendum stated that
a conviction of an aggravated felony under federal law “will result in
removal/deportation, exclusion, and/or denial of naturalization.” The form defined
aggravated felony to include a crime of violence if the term of imprisonment is at least
one year, a crime of moral turpitude, and a domestic violence offense. Defendant did not
require a Spanish interpreter and this was not his first criminal action. In addition,
defendant admitted in his declaration that he had discussed his immigration status with
his appointed counsel before his plea and understood that any conviction might lead to
deportation. Defense counsel certified that he believed defendant had an adequate
opportunity to discuss the case with him and understood the consequences of the plea,
and counsel joined in his decision to plead guilty. A defendant cannot be told that his
plea will lead to removal, confirm on the record that he understood that consequence,
present no contrary evidence from his defense attorney, and then credibly claim years
later that he did not understand that he would be removed. (People v. Abdelsalam (2022)
73 Cal.App.5th 654, 666 (Abdelsalam).)
Furthermore, defendant’s claim in his declaration that he did not understand the
immigration consequences of the plea was not credible and uncorroborated. The record
10
contradicts his assertion that he had not “truly understood” the adverse immigration
consequences of his pleas. (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (i); People v. Hawthorne (2009) 46
Cal.4th 67, 100 [evidence tending to contradict witness’s testimony is relevant for
impeachment], overruled on another ground in People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th
610, 637.) The unambiguous language in the immigration consequences addendum
contradicts defendant’s assertion that he never knew that being convicted of an
aggravated felony would affect his immigration status. Additionally, at sentencing, Jane
Doe gave a victim impact statement noting that the criminal charges prevented
defendant’s grandsons from getting to know him “and now he’s going to be deported[.]”
She again referenced deportation, stating, “It’s best that he’s deported.” If defendant did
not know or “truly” understand that his conviction would cause his deportation, then once
he heard the victim’s statement, he should have asked to continue the sentencing hearing
so he could get clarification from defense counsel. The record shows that defendant
knew the immigration consequences of his conviction and accepted them. Defendant’s
version of his discussions with his appointed counsel prior to pleading guilty is at odds
with the record.
Defendant’s declaration does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that defense counsel did not adequately advise defendant of the adverse immigration
consequences of pleading guilty to the charges, or that he was advised but did not
understand the warnings given him. Defendant did not present any statements, sworn or
unsworn, from defense counsel to corroborate his declaration. (Abdelsalam, supra, 73
11
Cal.App.5th at 664; see Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 519 [the defendant provided
defense counsel’s “unsworn e-mail correspondence” with postconviction counsel “and
her handwritten notes” that she did not “advise him as to the actual immigration
consequences of a plea to the . . . charge or any other plea”]; Camacho, supra, 32
Cal.App.5th at p. 1009.) A defendant can easily claim his attorney erred. (In re Alvernaz
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 938.) Defendant’s assertions that defense counsel never advised
him or misadvised him about the immigration consequences of the open plea is
“meaningless unless there is objective corroborating evidence supporting appellant’s
claimed failures.” (People v. Cruz-Lopez (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 212, 224, superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 26.)
Defendant’s claim rested primarily on his self-serving statements, and self-serving
statements generally lack trustworthiness. (Ibid.; People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th
603, 611.) Defendant also did not examine his appointed counsel at the hearing, and
there is no evidence to suggest counsel was deceased, unavailable or unwilling to testify
or sign a declaration. (See Espinoza, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 325 [during motion hearing
parties informed the trial court “they tried, without success, to contact the attorney who
represented Espinoza at the time his plea was entered”].)
Defendant claims his mental health issues established error. We disagree.
Defendant asserted in his declaration that he had a history of mental health issues and, as
of 2022, had been treated for schizophrenia, generalized anxiety disorder, and major
depressive disorder. However, defendant did not explain that he had experienced those
12
issues when he discussed the immigration consequences with his defense attorney, when
he signed the change of plea form and addendum, during the change of plea colloquy, or
during sentencing. He also did not explain how those mental health issues damaged his
ability to understand and accept the immigration consequences of his plea. Moreover,
two years after defendant’s conviction, an immigration court found he was mentally
competent to proceed with removal proceedings. Defendant has not shown he was given
inaccurate advice from counsel. There is no suggestion in the record that anyone ever
said anything to defendant to suggest that having legal permanent resident status meant
he could ignore or disregard the immigration consequences explained to him both by his
counsel and by the court or the immigration addendum form he signed. Rather, the
record shows that defendant was adequately advised about the adverse immigration
consequences of his plea. Nothing in the record undermines the court’s findings on this
issue. We afford them the deference to which they are entitled. (Espinoza, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 320; Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 527-528.)
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the trial court that defendant received
specific and proper immigration advisements prior to entering his guilty pleas. As such,
we need not examine whether defendant was prejudiced by the denial of his
section 1473.7 motion to vacate.
13
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s motion for relief under section 1473.7 is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CODRINGTON J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
14
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, as the record contained clear advisements and the defendant's self-serving declaration lacked credibility.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his plea under Penal Code section 1473.7 due to ineffective assistance of counsel regarding immigration advice?
Did the defendant meet his burden of proving he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find defendant failed to show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.”