People v. Segura CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 2016 No. F070070Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his plea, as the court had provided the required immigration advisements under Penal Code section 1016.5 and the motion was not a properly filed petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his plea under Penal Code section 1016.5?
Should the trial court have treated the defendant's motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is undisputed that the court advised Segura of the three immigration consequences of his plea it was required to advise him of pursuant to section 1016.5.”

“section 1016.5 did not grant the court jurisdiction to consider an ineffectiveness of counsel claim with respect to his plea.”

“we reject his contention that the court should have treated his motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we decline to remand this matter to the trial court for it to do so.”

Filed 2/18/16 P. v. Segura CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F070070 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR030664) v.

SALVADOR HIGAREDA SEGURA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Dale J. Blea, Judge. Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant Salvador Higareda Segura appeals from the trial court’s denial in case No. MCR030664 of his motion “to vacate on constitutional grounds” and “reopen case under California Penal Code section 1016.5.”1 We affirm. FACTS On March 28, 2008, Segura pled no contest to stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)) and admitted an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1) in case No. MCR030664 as a part of a plea bargain, pursuant to which he pled to charges in two other cases and admitted violating his probation in a fourth case, in exchange for a stipulated term of six years. Prior to entering his plea, Segura signed a change of plea form and he placed his initials next to the following statement on the form:

“My attorney has explained the possible penalties and consequences of the plea(s) of GUILTY to be … if not a citizen, my plea may have the consequence of my deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” During the plea colloquy, Segura acknowledged that the form had been translated to him, that he initialed it, and that he understood its contents. Additionally, the following exchange occurred:

“THE COURT: Do you understand if you’re not a citizen of the United States, you should assume that your plea will result in your deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, and denial of naturalization under the laws of the United States?

People v. Segura CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief