P. v.
Filed 9/8/10 P. v. Mendoza CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
FRANCISCO AMEZCUA MENDOZA,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E049354
(Super.Ct.No.
FWV07702)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior
Court of San
Bernardino County.
Michael A. Sachs, Judge.
Affirmed.
Law Office of Mark A. Davis and Mark
A. Davis for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney
General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons,
Assistant Attorney General, and Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Kelley Johnson,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1996, defendant and appellant Francisco Amezcua Mendoza pled guilty
to possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11351.5.) The trial court placed
him on three years of supervised probation.
Thirteen years later, he filed a motion to vacate the judgment under
Penal Code section 1016.5,[1] on the basis that he was not advised
adequately of the immigration consequences of his conviction. The court denied the motion.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying the motion to
vacate the judgment because: (1) his
plea should have been invalidated since there was evidence that he spoke
Spanish and the plea form was not translated for him; (2) the record
establishes the court failed to advise him that he could be excluded from
admission to the United States; and (3) the court abused its discretion in
finding that he had not acted diligently in bringing the motion. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
The Guilty Plea
On August 12, 1996, defendant pled guilty to one count of
possession of cocaine base for sale.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) Paragraph 13 of the plea form defendant
signed contained the following advisement:
â€
| Description | Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1996, defendant and appellant Francisco Amezcua Mendoza pled guilty to possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.) The trial court placed him on three years of supervised probation. Thirteen years later, he filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Penal Code section 1016.5,[1] on the basis that he was not advised adequately of the immigration consequences of his conviction. The court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying the motion to vacate the judgment because: (1) his plea should have been invalidated since there was evidence that he spoke Spanish and the plea form was not translated for him; (2) the record establishes the court failed to advise him that he could be excluded from admission to the United States; and (3) the court abused its discretion in finding that he had not acted diligently in bringing the motion. Court affirm. |
| Rating |
