P. v. Richey CA4/3

Filed 4/8/13 P. v. Richey 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G046919

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11HF2339)

MARIA ROSARIO TORRES RICHEY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig E. Robison, Judge. Affirmed. Zulu Ali for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Meagan Beale and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant is an undocumented immigrant who is facing the prospect of deportation to her native country, Mexico. Working on the assumption this prospect arose because she pleaded guilty to a deportable offense, appellant claims she should be allowed to withdraw her plea because her attorney failed to warn her it would result in her being deported. However, the record shows appellant was adequately advised of the consequences of her plea. It also shows she was subject to deportation irrespective of her plea due to her status as an undocumented immigrant. Therefore, the trial court properly denied her motion to withdraw her plea. FACTS On September 15, 2011, appellant was charged in a felony complaint with six counts of commercial burglary and one count each of receiving stolen property and possessing methamphetamine. She was arraigned the same day and entered a plea of not guilty to all of the charges. The minute order from the arraignment hearing states, “Defendant has a Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [(ICE)] hold.” On September 23, 2011, appellant entered into a written plea agreement with the prosecution. Pursuant to the agreement, appellant agreed to plead guilty to one count of commercial burglary, plus the receiving and possession charges, in exchange for having the remaining charges dismissed. Appellant faced a maximum prison sentence of four years and four months under the agreement, but probation was designated as the “proposed disposition.” The plea agreement also specified that, by pleading guilty, appellant was giving up certain rights and exposing herself to several detrimental consequences. Under the heading of “Immigration consequences,” the agreement states, “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States the conviction for the offense(s) 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.”