Filed 11/18/21 P. v. Cueva CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B310652 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA444480) v. NANCY AMPARO CUEVA, Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: Nancy Amparo Cueva (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to vacate her plea. Her appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), indicating that her review of the entire record revealed no “arguable issues on appeal.” Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We will accordingly review the arguments she raises. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1040 (Cole) review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) However, they all lack merit, so we affirm. In 2016, the People charged defendant with three counts of grand theft by embezzlement (Penal Code1 section 487, subd. (a)), and alleged sentencing enhancements because the total theft exceeded $200,000 (§§ 186.11, subd. (a)(3) & 12022.6, subd. 2 (a)(2)). Prior to the scheduled preliminary hearing on those charges, defendant accepted the People’s offer to plead no contest to a single count of embezzlement, to serve 16 months in prison and to pay $321,500 in restitution in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and enhancements. The trial court engaged in a thorough plea colloquy: The court recounted the charges against defendant and the consequences of entry of a plea of no contest and advised her of her rights to a preliminary hearing, to a court or jury trial, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against her, to subpoena witnesses and present a defense, and to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. The court then reiterated the terms of the proposed agreement including the amounts of restitution owed to each victim. Throughout the colloquy, the court provided defendant several opportunities to confer with counsel, and she did so twice. Defendant stated she understood her rights and entered a plea of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Pursuant to a sunset clause section 12022.6 was repealed effective January 1, 2018. (See former § 12022.6, subd. (f).) 2 no contest to one count of grand theft by embezzlement. The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in county jail, and ordered restitution in the agreed upon amount to the three victims. On February 5, 2020, defendant filed a motion in propria 3 persona, pursuant to section 1473.7 to vacate her plea because (1) “she was not informed of the adverse consequences” of her plea, rendering the plea invalid; and (2) her counsel was ineffective in his representation of her during the preliminary hearing and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals