California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 2013 No. D062580Unpublished
Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Jimenez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D062580
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. CR61972)
RUBEN WILFIDE JIMENEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F.
O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Morgan Ford for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin and
Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1983, Ruben Wilfide Jimenez entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing
heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and was placed on probation for a period of three
years. In 2012, Jimenez filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court denied the
motion. Jimenez appeals, contending that the court erred in concluding that it lacked
that Jimenez was diligent in bringing the motion, the change of plea form and the
reporter's transcript of the change of plea hearing establish that Jimenez was advised that
he might be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea. Jimenez represented to the
judge that he understood English. Jimenez's responses were generally appropriate,
demonstrating that he understood the judge's questions. Jimenez checked the applicable
boxes on the change of plea form and said that he had discussed the matter thoroughly
with attorney Brahms.
The record thus establishes that Jimenez was properly advised of the immigration
consequences of his guilty plea. He therefore cannot prevail on a motion to withdraw his
guilty plea.
1 Respondent argues that the court denied the motion on the basis that it was untimely. Although the court did discuss diligence and timeliness, the record does not support the conclusion that the court denied the motion on that basis. 6
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, holding that the record established the defendant was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea as required by Penal Code section 1016.5.
Issues
Did the trial court err in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to rule on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after the probationary period expired?
Did the defendant establish that he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The record thus establishes that Jimenez was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He therefore cannot prevail on a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”
“Jimenez is correct in arguing that the court erroneously ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because Jimenez was no longer on probation.”