People v. Escamilla CA1/1

Filed 10/26/21 P. v. Escamilla CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161241 v. JUAN ESCAMILLA, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 137540) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Juan Escamilla appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion under Penal Code section 1473.71 to vacate his 1999 conviction for felony willful infliction of corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). He contends that his conviction is legally invalid because he was inadequately informed of potential adverse immigration consequences when he pled guilty to the offense. However, the record reveals that he is a natural born United States citizen. Failing to establish any entitlement to relief, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On the morning of November 8, 1999, appellant’s then-spouse, G.O., received a telephone call from a friend. When she completed the call,

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The factual background is taken from the probation report filed on 2

March 7, 2000.

1

appellant began arguing with her about receiving phone calls at their house. During the argument, he grabbed an extension cord and began striking G.O. with it, hitting her numerous times on her legs, upper arms, back and hands. He then ordered her to call her friend and tell her never to call again. During the call, G.O. told her friend that appellant had hit her and would not let her leave the house. G.O.’s friend came to the house and observed appellant holding her by the neck with his hand over her mouth. The friend called the police. Appellant was arrested and later pled guilty to violating section 273.5, subdivision (a), admitting that he had used a deadly weapon and had inflicted great bodily injury. At the plea hearing, he was asked if he understood that entering a guilty plea to the charges “could affect [his] immigration status.” After he answered, “No,” the trial court explained: “What that means is this …, if you were not a citizen of the United States, the entry of your plea of guilty today and the admission of the enhancement allegations could cause one or more of the following immigration and naturalization service consequences: You could be deported. You could be denied naturalization, or you could be denied re-admission to the United States after a temporary absence. [¶] Knowing of those possible immigration and naturalization service consequences, do you still want to leave your pleas – plea and admissions in effect?” Appellant responded, “Yeah.” The court sentenced him to five years of probation. On March 25, 2019, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to section 1473.7. He maintained that he was not adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. In a declaration accompanying his motion, appellant asserted that he would not have entered a plea had he known of these adverse immigration consequences. Neither the