People v. Carranza CA5

Filed 2/27/14 P. v. Carranza CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F066552

v. (Tulare Super. Ct. No. VCF266748A)

ROBERTO MORA CARRANZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie A. Mitchell and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

INTRODUCTION On April 19, 2012, appellant, Roberto Mora Carranza, was charged in a criminal complaint with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, count 1), cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358, count 2), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, count 3). Count 3 further alleged that appellant was a principal armed with a firearm pursuant to Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) when committing count 3. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on July 12, 2012, appellant admitted count 3 and the special allegation with the understanding he would receive a grant of felony probation. In taking appellant’s change of plea, the trial court advised appellant that there were “probably going to be adverse immigration consequences.” The court told appellant he would probably be deported and denied naturalization, reentry into the United States, and citizenship. When asked if he understood these consequences of his plea, appellant replied, “Yes.” On August 15, 2012, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed appellant on felony probation, and ordered him to serve 270 days in county jail, according to the terms of the plea agreement. On October 18, 2012, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea on the ground that he had not been properly advised by his trial counsel concerning the immigration consequences of his plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, appellant’s sole contention is that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm. FACTS On April 17, 2012, sheriff’s deputies executed a search warrant at appellant’s residence. In one of the bedrooms, deputies found four bags of marijuana weighing