People v. Caro CA4/3

Filed 7/21/22 P. v. Caro CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060941

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF2259)

CARLOS EDUARDO CASTANOS OPINION CARO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of R. Chris Lim and R. Chris Lim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Carlos Eduardo Castanos Caro filed a motion to vacate his prior drug-related convictions, asserting he did not meaningfully understand the immigration 1 consequences of his guilty pleas. (See Pen. Code, § 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court denied the motion “without prejudice,” stating defendant could refile the motion if there was “something further.” On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We asked for supplemental briefing as to whether the denial of a motion “without prejudice” is an appealable order. Under the circumstances, we find the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion was on the merits and is res judicata, so it is an appealable order. (See In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763, 768.) We have further reviewed the record and have found no other arguable issues, so we affirm the order of the court.