P. v. Galarza CA2/4

Filed 6/19/13 P. v. Galarza CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B242992

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA024597) v.

ELIZABETH GALARZA et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cynthia Rayvis, Judge. Affirmed. Michael S. Cabrera and Kristen M. Hart for Defendants and Appellants. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendants Elizabeth Galarza and Janet Loaiza appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motions to withdraw their 1996 guilty pleas pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.51 and their petitions for a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 18, 1996, defendants pled guilty to one count of transporting marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a).) They were granted probation, subject to various terms and conditions, including the service of a 180-day county jail term. On January 6, 2012, each defendant filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis and a motion to vacate her plea pursuant to section 1016.5 (petition). Each petition contained identical allegations. First, defendants claimed the prosecutor failed to advise them of the immigration consequences of their guilty pleas in accordance with section 1016.5. Second, they contended that their attorneys rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise them of the potential impact of their pleas on their ability to remain in this country. On February 17, 2012, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office filed opposition to the petitions. It cited the transcript of defendants’ guilty pleas and argued they had been adequately advised pursuant to section 1016.5. On July 6, 2012, the trial court, after considering the petitions and the opposition, found no basis for allowing defendants to withdraw their guilty pleas. It concluded that the prosecutor who had taken the pleas substantially complied with the requirements of section 1016.5. Regarding counsel’s alleged failure to advise defendants of the immigration consequences of their pleas, the court found that defendants had failed to establish prejudice. It determined that defendants could not show that but for counsel’s error, they would have rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial, noting that