P. v. de Lama
Defendant and appellant Javier Angelo Tueros de Lama appeals after he pleaded guilty to one count of possessing prescription drugs for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11375, subdivision (b)(1). He contends that his trial attorney rendered constitutionally ineffective representation in failing to specifically advise defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He filed a nonstatutory motion below to vacate the plea on that ground. The trial court denied the motion; defendant contends that the denial of the motion was erroneous.
The People argue in contrast that defendant forfeited the issue by failing to bring a timely motion to withdraw his plea, or otherwise to seek review by a proper procedure. We agree with the People that defendant did not pursue an appropriate avenue to review his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC); although his motion below was the functional equivalent of a petition for writ of error coram nobis, this court has recently held that such a procedure is an improper vehicle by which to vacate or withdraw a guilty plea on the ground of IAC. (See People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1145-1146 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] (Mbaabu).) Even if, in an abundance of caution, the issue is considered on the merits, defendant failed to carry his burden of showing entitlement to relief under the writ.
Because the essential question—whether defendant pursued an appropriate vehicle by which to raise his claim—is answered in the negative, we conclude that the trial court properly determined it had no jurisdiction to proceed. Defendant’s appeal must be dismissed.
Comments on P. v. de Lama