P. v. Barrera CA2/2

Filed 3/6/13 P. v. Barrera CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B238326

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA005274) v.

JOSE LUIS BARRERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed.

Rene A. Ramos, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Defendant and appellant Jose Luis Barrera (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment entered in 1990 upon a guilty plea. He contends that the trial court erred in finding that he was adequately advised of the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The People contend that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to vacate the plea. Substantial evidence supports a finding that the advisements were given. We affirm the order.

BACKGROUND On October 9, 1990, in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. VA005274, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second degree burglary, in violation of Penal Code section 459.1 The standard plea form, i.e., the Tahl2 form, included a paragraph which listed the immigration consequences of a plea. It provided: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, the conviction for the offense 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.” Defendant declared by his signature at the end of the document he understood “each and every one” of his constitutional rights and desired to waive those rights to plead guilty, and he had “personally initialed each of the above boxes and discussed them with [his] attorney.” Defendant was represented by attorney Arnold W. Lieman. Lieman declared, “I have explained each of the above rights to the defendant, and having explored the facts with him/her and studied his/her possible defenses to the charge(s), I concur in his/her decision to waive the above rights and to enter a plea of guilty.” Before accepting the guilty plea, the trial court (before Commissioner Thomas Parrott) asked the prosecutor to obtain defendant’s waiver. Defendant was directed to examine the two-page Tahl waiver form that was placed in front of him, and was asked if,