People v. Arendtsz

Filed 5/19/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B264807

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA062998) v.

GRANVILLE KINGSLEY ARENDTSZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jared Moses, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Zulu Ali and Zulu Ali for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTON

Defendant, Granville Kingsley Arendtsz, appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1016.51 motion to vacate his nolo contendere plea. Defendant argues, as he did in the trial court, that he should have been advised he would be denied special forms of removal relief such as asylum. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling defendant was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his nolo contendere plea. Accordingly, we affirm the denial order.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2006, defendant pled nolo contendere to felony sexual battery in violation of section 243.4. Prior to defendant’s plea, former Deputy District Attorney Teresa Sullivan, twice advised him that his plea would result in adverse immigration consequences if he was not a United States citizen: “Ms. Sullivan: If you’re not a citizen of the United States, you’re hereby advised that conviction of this offense[] will result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States and denial of naturalization. [¶] Do you understand? [¶] The Defendant: Yes. [¶] . . . [¶] Ms. Sullivan: Sir, just to reiterate, I do believe I advised you, do you understand if you are not a citizen, this plea will result in deportation? [¶] The Defendant: Yes.” (Italics added.) Nine years later, on February 27, 2015, defendant filed his section 1016.5 motion. Defendant’s motion states, “Defendant is currently in immigration removal proceedings and has been ordered removed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.” The prosecution did not dispute that statement. Defendant argued in part he was not warned he could be denied special forms of relief from removal including “Cancellation of Removal and Asylum.” In his declaration submitted with the motion,