People v. Singh CA4/3

Filed 12/4/15 P. v. Singh CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049973

v. (Super. Ct. No. 97HF1264)

ANDY JOHN SINGH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Christine Levingston Bergman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In November 1997, defendant Andy John Singh pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), admitting at the same time a prior strike conviction allegation (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (d), (e)(1)) and a prior prison term allegation (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court placed defendant on supervised probation for three years, including 365 days in county jail. In February 2014, defendant filed a handwritten “motion to strike prior conviction,” which we have construed (at the urging of defendant’s appellate counsel) as a Penal Code section 1016.5 (section 1016.5) motion to vacate the November 1997 judgment and allow defendant to enter a not guilty plea. Section 1016.5 requires courts to provide individuals who are pleading guilty with an advisement of potential 1 immigration consequences, and authorizes relief from guilty pleas when the advisement 2 is not provided. No opposition was filed. It appears defendant simply mailed his motion to the court; no proof of service appears in the record. Without holding a hearing on the motion, the court ruled as an initial matter that it had no jurisdiction because defendant’s