People v. Acosta CA2/2

Filed 3/24/16 P. v. Acosta CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B267832

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA034065) v.

JUAN ACOSTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leland B. Harris, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Sheny Gutierrez, Sheny Gutierrez and Ruben D. Frias, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Corey J. Robins, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Juan Acosta (defendant) entered two pleas in 1999. In 2014, he sought to vacate those pleas due to the lack of a proper advisement regarding the possible immigration consequences of those pleas. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate. We disagree and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1999, the People charged defendant with (1) using false documents to conceal 1 his citizenship or resident alien status (Pen. Code, § 114), and (2) perjury (§ 118). On September 20, 1999, defendant entered pleas to both counts. On January 15, 2014, defendant appeared in court, admitted he had violated his probation for the 1999 case, and was sentenced to 120 days in county jail. Defendant then suffered unspecified “immigration consequences” from his 1999 convictions. Defendant thereafter filed a motion to vacate his 1999 convictions pursuant to section 1016.5. Along with his motion, defendant filed a declaration stating he was not advised of the potential immigration consequences of entering his pleas and, if he had been so advised, he would not have entered those pleas. Defendant had signed a written plea advisement form, but neither that form nor a reporter’s transcript from the plea colloquy still exists. At the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate, the trial court noted that “page 2 of the minute order . . . shows the advisement, September 20, 1999.” Defendant responded that “the minute order . . . isn’t sufficient to show advisement,” but did not otherwise dispute the trial court’s representation of the minute order’s contents. The trial court denied the motion to vacate. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, which we deem to be an appeal of the denial of the motion to vacate.