People v. Flores CA2/6

Filed 5/27/14 P. v. Flores CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B252492 (Super. Ct. No. LA067000-01-02) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

OTILIA FLORES and ALIZON FLORES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Otilia Flores and Alizon Flores appeal a July 24, 2013 order denying their petitions for writ of error coram nobis to vacate their 2011 pleas to first degree residential 1 burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) Appellants claim that trial counsel failed to advise them on the immigration consequences of such a conviction before the change of plea was entered. Constitutional claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel may not be remedied by a writ of error coram nobis. (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1104; People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147-1148.) We affirm the judgment. Procedural History On December 15, 2011, appellants entered a change of plea to one count of residential burglary in exchange for a low term, two-year state prison sentence with credit for time served. The change of plea was pursuant to a "Felony Advisement of Rights,

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Waiver and Plea" that was initialed and signed by appellants. Under the section entitled "CONSEQUENCES OF MY PLEA," appellants initialed an "Immigration Consequences" clause that stated: "I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, I must expect my plea of guilty or no contest will result in my deportation, exclusion from admission or reentry to the United States, and denial of naturalization and amnesty." When the change of plea was entered, appellants acknowledged that they understood the nature of the charges, the disposition and settlement terms, and the immigration consequences of the plea. Appellants confirmed that they discussed the change of plea with their respective attorneys and understood and agreed with what was stated on the change of plea form. Appellants also initialed paragraph 15 of the plea agreement which stated: "I offer my plea of guilty of no contest freely and voluntarily and with full understanding of all the matters set forth in the pleadings and in this form. No one has . . . made any promises to me, except as set out in this form, in order to convince me to plea guilty or no contest." Before the change of plea was entered, the trial court questioned appellants about the immigration consequences of the plea: "I just want to make sure you fully understand, given the nature of the case. [¶] If you are not a citizen of this country, a conviction of the offense that you're pleading to will have the consequences of deportation, removal, exclusion from admission to the United States, denial of reentry, and denial of naturalization pursuant to United States law, as well as denial of amnesty. Do you understand that?" Appellants answered, "Yes." Appellants were sentenced on August 9, 2012, to two years state prison with credit for 730 days served. In March 2013, appellants were taken into immigration custody. On April 26, 2013, appellants retained new counsel and filed coram nobis petitions alleging that their previous attorneys told them that no negative immigration consequences would result from the plea. Citing People v. Mbaabu, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139 and People v. Shokur (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1398, the trial court denied the petitions on the theory