People v. Samayoa CA2/5

Filed 12/17/14 P. v. Samayoa CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B256993

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A375170) v.

FIDEL SAMAYOA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Eduardo Paredes, Eduardo Paredes for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jessica C. Owen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Fidel Samayoa appeals from the denial of his Penal Code section 1016.5 (section 1016.5) motion to vacate his 1982 conviction for selling marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360. He contends that prior to pleading guilty to that offense, the prosecutor did not properly advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. We affirm.

BACKGROUND1 On January 29, 1982, defendant and appellant Fidel Samayoa pleaded guilty to selling marijuana. In advising defendant of the consequences of his guilty plea, the prosecutor stated: “I have to advise you as I have to advise any other defendant who is pleading guilty, that if you are not a citizen of the United States, pleading guilty to this offense could result in your deportation or denial of reentry privileges and denial of citizenship and the denial of work privileges. [¶] Do you understand that those are possibilities if you are not a citizen of the United States, and if you plead guilty to this offense?” Defendant responded, “Yes.” On January 28, 2003, defendant moved, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4,2 to vacate the guilty verdict and dismiss the information regarding his 1982 conviction. The trial court granted the motion. On August 19, 2013, defendant moved, pursuant to section 1016.5, to vacate his 1982 conviction arguing that he had not been advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the prosecutor’s advisement of the immigration consequences of defendant’s guilty plea substantially complied with section 1016.5.