P. v. Gonzalez
Filed 4/16/10 P. v. Gonzalez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILFREDO GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | D055769 (Super. Ct. No. SCE284290) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed.
Wilfredo Gonzalez entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)). After the court placed Gonzalez on four years' probation, Gonzalez retained new counsel who filed a motion to withdraw the plea. In the motion Gonzalez asserted former counsel gave him incorrect advice concerning the immigration consequences of the plea. The court denied the motion. Gonzalez appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Gonzalez's eight-year-old niece fell asleep on his living room couch when she was spending the night at his home. When she woke up, she was in his bedroom. He pressed his penis against her body and put his finger in her vagina.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Gonzalez's motion to withdraw the guilty plea and (2) whether the plea is invalid as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We granted Gonzalez permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded and requests dismissal of the charges so he will not be deported. He says deportation would separate him from his wife and three children and would cause psychological trauma to all. Gonzalez has not shown any legal basis for reversing the conviction.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Gonzalez has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
