Filed 5/9/22; Certified for Publication 6/6/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ---- THE PEOPLE, C092015 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR77535) v. MANUAL VALDIVIAS SOTO, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Manuel Valdivias Soto is a noncitizen who moved to the United States as a teenager in the late 1980’s to be with family and have children of his own. He appeals from the trial court’s denial of his 2020 motion to vacate his 2010 drug trafficking conviction, which subjects him to mandatory removal under federal immigration law. Claiming he would have rejected the plea had he correctly understood its actual immigration consequences, defendant contends his conviction is invalid due to prejudicial error. Agreeing, we reverse. 1 BACKGROUND During a traffic stop in September 2009, police searched defendant and found 29.9 grams of methamphetamine in his breast pocket. According to the officer who arrested him, defendant stated he was to receive $200 for delivering the drugs on behalf of another person. A probation report noted defendant had never attended school, was illiterate in English and spoke it poorly, and was subject to an immigration hold as a noncitizen. Defendant was charged with possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). Pursuant to plea negotiations, defendant initialed and signed a waiver of rights and plea form, in which he indicated his understanding that, as a noncitizen, his plea “may cause my deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States and denial of citizenship or naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” He also initialed the following line on the form: “I read and understand the English language.” Defendant’s attorney signed an acknowledgement on the form stating, among other things, he had “explained the consequences of this plea” to his client. A Spanish interpreter signed an acknowledgement on the form stating she was duly sworn, had translated the form to defendant, and that defendant indicated he understood its contents. During a plea colloquy in November 2009, the trial court and defendant had the following exchange: “THE COURT: Mr. Soto, I have a Waiver of Rights form that appears to have your initials and signature. [¶] Did the Interpreter read it to you? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes. “THE COURT: Did you understand what she read to you? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 2 “THE COURT: Sir, before I can accept this plea, you must give up your right to remain silent, your right to a trial by jury, your right at trial to see, hear, and ask questions of witnesses, present evidence, testify, and have the Court require the attendance of witnesses and require their testimony. [¶] Do you understand all of these rights? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes. “THE COURT: Are you giving up all of these rights? “THE DEFENDANT: Whatever is necessary. “THE COURT: Sir, I need to know …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals