People v. Ramirez

California Court of Appeal Apr 16, 1999 No. F031267Published

Before: Thaxter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Penal Code section 1016.5 does not require a trial court to provide verbal immigration advisements to a defendant, provided the advisements are included in a signed change of plea form that uses the precise statutory language and the record confirms the defendant understood them.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 1016.5 require a trial court to provide verbal immigration advisements to a defendant entering a guilty plea?
Is a signed change of plea form containing the precise statutory language a sufficient substitute for verbal immigration advisements under section 1016.5?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We note there is no language which states the advisements must be verbal, only that they must appear on the record and must be given by the court.”

“Our state Supreme Court has held a validly executed waiver form is a proper substitute for verbal admonishment by the trial court.”

“The statute requires no more.”

Opinion

THAXTER, Acting P. J.

Facts and Procedural History

After a search of his residence revealed 16 ounces of methamphetamine, some cocaine, $2,035 cash and a .357 revolver, appellant Federico Lopez Ramirez was charged by complaint filed in Fresno County Municipal Court on November 8, 1994, with possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351, count one) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378, count two). The complaint also alleged as to both counts that appellant was personally armed with a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code

section 12022 and that appellant possessed 57 grams or more of methamphetamine within the meaning of section 1203.073, subdivision (b)(2). On December 8, 1994, after signing a change of plea form which included an immigration advisement, and after receiving additional advisements in open court, appellant pied guilty to count two and admitted the arming allegation. The remaining allegations were dismissed and there was a stipulated lid of five years in state prison. After being excluded from California Rehabilitation Center, appellant was sentenced to five years in state prison.

[521]

On June 2, 1998, while out on parole, appellant moved to vacate the judgment based upon the trial court’s failure to advise him verbally of the immigration consequences of his plea. Appellant is not a citizen and was facing deportation. On June 22, 1998, the motion to vacate was denied. Appellant filed his timely notice of appeal on July 6, 1998.

Discussion

Although appellant concedes the immigration advisement in the change of plea form contains all components of an adequate warning of the consequences for a noncitizen of pleading guilty to a felony offense, he argues section 1016.5 nonetheless requires a verbal advisement by the trial court of the immigration consequences of a plea.

Our reading of section 1016.5 does not bring us to the same conclusion. And we believe appellant has misconstrued the line of authority upon which he relies, including

People

People v. Ramirez

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief