People v. Maldonado CA3

Filed 3/6/26 P. v. Maldonado CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C103204

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24CR-001406)

v.

YURITZA GUADALUPE MALDONADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Yuritza Guadalupe Maldonado appeals the denial of her Penal Code section 10181 motion to withdraw her no contest plea to a negotiated charge of felony dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). On appeal, Maldonado contends the trial court erred in denying her motion, because her mistaken understanding of the immigration consequences of her plea was good cause to withdraw it. We find no abuse of discretion and will affirm the order denying the motion to withdraw the plea. Maldonado also contends, and the People agree, that the provision in the probation order

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

requiring her to reimburse Tehama County for public defender and probation related services must be stricken. We will strike this provision. BACKGROUND An information charged Maldonado with battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)).2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the information was subsequently amended to add a count of felony dissuading a witness. (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1).) Maldonado then pled no contest to the dissuading a witness charge in exchange for two years’ formal probation, conditioned on serving 90 days in county jail. On the People’s motion, the trial court dismissed the remaining count. In a written plea form, Maldonado acknowledged that she understood that if she was not a United States citizen, her no contest plea “may result” in her deportation, exclusion from admission, or denial of naturalization. Maldonado also acknowledged in the plea form that she had a full opportunity to discuss the case with her attorney, including the immigration consequences of the plea. The trial court confirmed Maldonado understood everything on the plea form. During the plea colloquy, the court advised Maldonado, “if you are not a citizen of this country, by entry of your plea today and conviction herein, it can result in your deportation, denial of readmission into this country, or affect your ability to become a naturalized citizen.” Maldonado affirmed she had sufficient time to speak with defense counsel and was satisfied with his efforts on her behalf. After advising Maldonado of her rights and taking waivers, the trial court found the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that Maldonado understood the nature and consequences of the plea. Maldonado waived preparation of a probation report, and the trial court immediately sentenced her. In accordance with the plea, the court suspended imposition