People v. Salinas CA2/8

Filed 3/11/26 P. v. Salinas CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B344478

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA084808) v.

PEDRO MARTINEZ SALINAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tiosha Nichole Butler, Judge. Reversed. Mher Cholakhyan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

Pedro Martinez Salinas appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1473.7 motion to vacate his conviction. (See Pen. Code, § 1473.7, subd. (g) [authorizing such appeals].) He asserts he was prejudicially misled about his plea’s immigration consequences and that section 1473.7 entitles him to relief. The People agree. We reverse. In 2011, according to a police report, officers pulled Salinas over for minor Vehicle Code violations, obtained consent to search his car’s trunk, and discovered 0.41 grams of cocaine. The People filed a lone charge accusing Salinas of possessing a controlled substance and specifying that substance was cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Salinas pleaded not guilty. Salinas, a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, had been living in this country for over 20 years at the time of this prosecution. He arrived in 1990 at the age of 16. Salinas had a wife and three children, all United States citizens, and was employed. Given this, Salinas told his defense lawyer to prioritize an immigration-neutral resolution to his case, even if it resulted in more jail time. Salinas would have risked a jury trial before agreeing to a resolution that compromised his status in the United States. Accommodating Salinas’s concerns, the People amended the charging document against Salinas to add a new, purportedly immigration-neutral count. This second count alleged a violation of the same Health and Safety Code provision as the first but no longer named the substance involved. The People then offered a plea bargain in which Salinas would plead guilty, under People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, to the second count in exchange for being put on probation and placed into the Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) program (see former Pen. Code, §§ 1000-1000.4).