P. v. Bedier CA2/5

Filed 5/2/13 P. v. Bedier CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B241606

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA292964) v.

MOHAMAD BEDIER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed. Goldberg & Associates and Julie A. Goldberg for Defendants and Appellants. 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.

I. INTRODUCTION

Haifa and Mohamad Bedier (defendants) appeal from May 18, 2012 orders denying their nonstatutory motions to vacate their guilty pleas. Defendants challenge convictions entered in 2006 in order to eliminate them as a basis for deportation. We affirm the trial court’s orders.

II. PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

Defendants are Lebanese citizens who were legal residents of the United States. Defendants each pleaded guilty on August 14, 2006, to one count of welfare fraud. (Former Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2), Stats. 2002, ch. 1022, § 23.5.) Defendants were represented by counsel and assisted by Arabic language interpreters when they entered their pleas. The trial court advised them, “If you are not a citizen of the United States, a plea in this case will result in deportation, denial of naturalization, denial of re-entry into this country as well as exclusion from admission.” The trial court placed defendants on three years’ formal probation. Four years later, on March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, __ [130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486-1487]. Padilla held that before pleading guilty a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel, including advice of the possible immigration consequences of a plea. (Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. __, __ [133 S.Ct. 1103, 1105]; Padilla v. Kentucky, supra, 559 U.S. at p. __ [130 S.Ct. at pp. 1486-1487].) Nearly six years after pleading guilty, and two years after Padilla was decided, on March 26, 2012, defendants filed motions to vacate their pleas. Defendants had completed their California probation. In addition, they were in removal proceedings before federal immigration authorities. Defendants contended their trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise them of the immigration consequences of their pleas. Although they had discussed potential immigration consequences with counsel, they did