P. v. Mendiola
Eddie Giuseppe Mendiola appeals from the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment and to withdraw his guilty plea (which he also refers to as a petition for writ of error coram nobis).[1] He contends that when he pleaded guilty in 1996 to charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a controlled substance, and unauthorized possession of a syringe, he was not adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his plea as required by Penal Code section 1016.5. Mendiola acknowledges he signed and initialed a change of plea form properly advising him of the immigration consequences of his plea. He argues, however, the additional oral advisement given by the prosecutor when he entered his plea contradicted the plea form by only warning him the guilty plea could lead to denial of citizenship. Alternatively, Mendiola argues his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to warn him his guilty plea could lead to deportation or exclusion from admission to the United States. Court conclude Mendiola was adequately and properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea because the change of plea form he signed and initialed contained the advisement required by Penal Code section 1016.5. The oral advisement did not contradict the written advisement, but was merely incomplete. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised in a motion to vacate the judgment under section 1016.5 or a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Court therefore affirm.
Comments on P. v. Mendiola