P. v. Cisneros
In November 1990, defendant and appellant Gilbert Cisneros (defendant) pleaded nolo contendere to one count of possession of cocaine for sale and was placed on probation.[1] Almost twenty-two years later, in August 2012, defendant filed a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction and withdraw his plea (motion to vacate) under Penal Code section 1016.5 (section 1016.5). The trial court denied the motion. On appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate, defendant contends that the immigration advisement language in the minute order memorializing his plea was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 1016.5.
Because the record on appeal did not include the reporter’s transcript for the proceeding at which defendant pleaded nolo contendere, following briefing on this appeal, we obtained the reporter’s transcript from defendant’s earlier appeal from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and, on our own motion, we took judicial notice of that transcript. The reporter’s transcript from the earlier appeal included the transcript from the November 1990 proceeding at which defendant pleaded nolo contendere, which transcript affirmatively demonstrates that defendant was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his plea.
We hold that because the oral immigration advisement given at the proceeding at which defendant pleaded nolo contendere adequately advised defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required under section 1016.5, subdivision (a), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate on the grounds that defendant was adequately advised. We therefore affirm the order denying that motion.
Comments on P. v. Cisneros