People v. Gutierrez CA2/8

Filed 5/25/23 P. v. Gutierrez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B324412

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA073896) v.

JOSE LUIS GUTIERREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Shan D. Potts and Shan D. Potts for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Jose Luis Gutierrez appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Defendant was charged with two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2) and one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 3) arising from an incident on June 25, 2012, where he repeatedly yelled at and threatened harm to his girlfriend, Guadalupe R. Defendant’s girlfriend was the victim in counts 1 and 3. John G., the husband of one of Guadalupe’s friends, was the victim in count 2. John and his wife were allowing Guadalupe to stay with them when defendant came to their home, pounded on the door and threatened to kill John. In September 2012, defendant pled no contest to one count of making criminal threats. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the court imposed a three-year prison sentence, suspended execution of sentence and placed defendant on five years formal probation. One of the probation terms was that defendant would be released from custody to a six-month residential substance abuse treatment facility. The remaining two felony counts were dismissed. During the plea colloquy, the court did not discuss the immigration consequences with defendant. The court asked defendant if he read the felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form, if he discussed the form with his attorney, and if he initialed and signed the form himself. Defendant answered yes to all of those questions. The court then asked defendant if he had any questions for the court, and defendant said no.