P. v. Castrellon-Zamora























Filed 2/21/13 P. v. Castrellon-Zamora 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OTILIA CASTRELLON-ZAMORA, Defendant and Appellant.

B241603 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA370844)

APPEAL from a
judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Dorothy B. Reyes, Judge.
Affirmed.

Ann Krausz,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance
for Plaintiff and Respondent.





________________________________





On January 20,
2011,
appellant waived her constitutional
rights and pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport
methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. She was sentenced to the mid-term of three
years in state prison. On February 21, 2012, appellant filed a motion to vacate
her plea pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5, contending that the trial judge
did not advise her of the immigration consequences of the plea, as required by
that statute. On April
13, 2012,
the trial court denied the motion.

Appellant filed a timely href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">notice of appeal, specifically appealing
the denial of her motion to vacate her plea.
After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on
appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See >Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to
appellant’s last known address (Eloy Detention Center), advising appellant she
had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or
argument she wished this court to consider.
The letter was returned with the annotation “Unclaimed/Not in
Custody.”

Appellant does not dispute that the
prosecutor informed her of the immigration consequences of her plea in open
court, with the trial judge present.
This was sufficient to satisfy the court’s obligations under Penal Code
section 1016.5. (People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 535-536.) This court has examined the entire record in
accordance with People v. Wende, >supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and
is satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities
of counsel, and no arguable issues exist.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.



>DISPOSITION

The judgment
of conviction is affirmed.



>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS.









MANELLA,
J.



We concur:







EPSTEIN, P. J.







SUZUKAWA, J.