California Court of Appeal Jun 23, 2016 No. E063226Unpublished
Filed 6/23/16 P. v. Reyes CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063226
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1305688)
ARMANDO EMMANUEL OPINION CERVANTES REYES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Steven G. Counelis,
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, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Armando Emmanuel Cervantes Reyes appeals from the
trial court’s ruling denying his motion to vacate his 2013 conviction for drug possession.
1
In 2014, defendant moved to vacate the conviction on the ground that the trial court did
not ensure that he was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty
plea, as provided for in Penal Code section 1016.5.1 For the reasons discussed below, we
People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 199-200; People v. Totari
(2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 884.) As discussed below, we agree with the trial court that
defendant did not met his burden to demonstrate that the trial court that took his plea
failed to comply with section 1016.5.
Section 1016.5, subdivision (a), requires the following admonishment be given to
any defendant entering a guilty plea: “If you are not a citizen, you are hereby advised
that conviction of the offense for which you have been charged may have the
consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of
naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”
The court is not necessarily required to provide the above warning orally.
However, it must appear on the record, and it must be given by the court. (People v.
4
Gutierrez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 169, 175; People v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th
519, 521-522; People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 536; cf. People v.
Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 83 [trial court “may rely upon a defendant’s validly
executed waiver form as a proper substitute for a personal admonishment” with respect to
losing right to appeal a sentence after pleading no contest].)
“[T]he legislative purpose of section 1016.5 is to ensure a defendant is advised of
the immigration consequences of his plea and given an opportunity to consider them. So
long as the advisements are given, the language of the advisements appears in the record
for appellate consideration of their adequacy, and the trial court satisfies itself that the
defendant understood the advisements and had an opportunity to discuss the
consequences with counsel, the legislative purpose of section 1016.5 is met. [Citation.]”
(People v. Ramirez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 522.) “Nor need the statutory
admonition be given orally. It is sufficient if, as here, the advice is recited in a plea form
and the defendant and his counsel are questioned concerning that form to ensure that
defendant actually reads and understands it.” (People v. Quesada, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d
at p. 536.)
A trial court’s ruling on a section 1016.5 motion will withstand appellate review
unless the record shows a clear abuse of discretion. (People v. Superior Court
(Zamudio), supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 192.) In properly applying the standard of review, an
appellate court must uphold the trial court’s reasonable inferences and resolution of
factual conflicts if supported by substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
5
to the ruling, and must also accept the court’s credibility determinations. (People v.
Quesada, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 533.) The trial court’s inferences and conclusions
here are supported by substantial evidence.
The advisement required by section 1016.5 is included in section B.4. of the plea
form, as quoted above. Defendant placed his initials in the space provided next to that
advisement. In addition, defendant signed at the end of the plea form to indicate that he
had read and understood the document, and defendant’s trial counsel signed the attorney
statement providing that defendant had an opportunity to discuss the case with her and
understood the consequences of the plea. Finally, the record transcript of the plea hearing
shows that defendant answered “Yes” when the court inquired as to whether he reviewed
the plea form with his counsel and whether his initials and signatures on the form were
authentic. These answers and defendant’s signatures and initials on the plea form are the
basis of the court’s finding that defendant understood the consequences of his plea.
In accordance with the case law discussed above, we conclude from this record
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to
vacate, and its ruling is supported by substantial evidence. The plea form strongly
indicates that defendant was advised of and understood the immigration consequences of
his plea, and the record transcript shows the trial judge inquired of defendant and was
assured that defendant understood the consequences of the plea. The judgment is
affirmed.
6
DISPOSITION
The court’s order denying the motion to vacate is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
SLOUGH J.
7
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 conviction, as the record established that the defendant was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea through a signed plea form and subsequent colloquy.
Issues
Did the trial court err in determining that the defendant was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Nor need the statutory admonition be given orally. It is sufficient if, as here, the advice is recited in a plea form and the defendant and his counsel are questioned concerning that form to ensure that defendant actually reads and understands it.”