People v. Ortiz CA2/4

Filed 6/9/16 P. v. Ortiz CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B265715

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA078145) v.

PATRICIA ORTIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Zulu Ali, Zuli Ali for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Tannaz Kouhpainezhad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In connection with her guilty plea, defendant Patricia Ortiz was advised of the immigration consequences of that plea pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1016.5, subdivision (a). She later filed a motion to vacate her conviction on the basis that she was not properly advised pursuant to section 1016.5. The court denied the motion and defendant now appeals. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY2 On October 9, 2003, defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359 (count 2). Prior to entry of her plea, the court advised defendant as follows: “If you are not a citizen of the United States you will be deported, denied reentry into the country, and denied the right to become a natural citizen. Do you understand the consequences of your plea?” Defendant responded “yes, sir.”3 Defendant also signed a written plea agreement, initialing next to the acknowledgment that she understood she could be subject to deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization. The court found that defendant waived her rights “knowingly, understandingly, and explicitly,” and counsel joined in the waiver. The court then accepted defendant’s plea as to count 2 and dismissed the remaining four counts pursuant to the plea. The court sentenced defendant to 73 days in jail and three years formal probation, with 73 days of presentence custody credit. Eleven years later, in 2015, defendant filed a motion to vacate her conviction. Defendant’s motion claimed that she was “currently being held in immigration custody and is seeking relief from deportation,” and argued that she “should have been warned” that her conviction “would likely result in removal proceedings.” In her supporting declaration, defendant stated that the court “never informed me that pleading guilty to the