Filed 7/14/21 P. v. Torres-Vasquez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT THE PEOPLE, B306428 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA426925) v. JUAN DAVID TORRES-VASQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Christopher Lionel Haberman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriguez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2015, Juan David Torres-Vasquez pled no contest to one count of taking a vehicle without consent and was sentenced to 1 16 months in prison. (Pen. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Facing removal proceedings and deportation, Torres-Vasquez filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. He attached a declaration that he had informed his attorney several times he would rather go to trial to ensure he could stay in the United States, and his counsel assured him deportation was avoidable. Had he understood his plea would result in deportation, he would have sought an alternative plea or gone to trial. The court summarily denied the motion without a hearing due to state-wide emergency orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and without appointing Torres-Vasquez counsel. The court cited portions of the plea hearing in which Torres- Vasquez affirmed he understood he would be deported and asked his counsel questions off the record about the immigration consequences of his plea. Torres-Vasquez filed a second motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to sections 1016.5 and 1473.7, submitting a second declaration that he was not advised of the immigration consequences of his plea and would not have pled no contest had he known he would be deported. The court again summarily denied this motion without a hearing and without appointing defense counsel, this time with prejudice. It cited its previous denial and the same passages from the plea transcript. 1 Undesignated statutory citations refer to the Penal Code. 2 On appeal, Torres-Vasquez argues he demonstrated entitlement to relief pursuant to section 1473.7, so we should reverse the order and direct the trial court to grant his motion. Alternatively, he requests we remand the matter because the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without appointing him counsel or holding a hearing. Respondent partially concedes the procedural error on the second point, and does not address the merits. Consistent with People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969 (Fryhaat), respondent urges us to remand the case with directions that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals