Filed 5/5/23 P. v. Macias CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E078791 v. (Super.Ct.No. ICR24587) RAYMUNDO CARDENAS MACIAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. James S. Hawkins, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Law Offices of Michael Poole and Michael L. Poole for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, and Melissa Mandel and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1996, defendant and appellant Raymundo Cardenas Macias pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. After his plea, Congress passed the Illegal 1 Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) (Pub. L. 104- 208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996).), which Macias argues rendered his conviction a deportable offense. In 2021, Macias filed a motion under Penal Code1 section 1473.7 seeking to have this conviction vacated on the basis that he did not “meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1)) the adverse immigration consequences of his plea and would not have taken the plea if he had. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Macias argues the post-plea changes in the law meant he did not meaningfully understand the potential adverse immigration consequences of his plea. The People argue Macias understood the immigration consequences of his plea when he made it. We agree with the People that what is relevant for section 1473.7 is whether Macias understood the immigration consequences at the time of his plea, not whether a later change in the law altered the consequences of the plea. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND For about two years prior to 1996, Macias had an on again, off again sexual relationship with the victim, who was then a minor. On March 19, 1996, when Macias was 23 and the victim was 18, Macias picked her up in his car and they had sex. The victim reported to the police that the sex was non-consensual, which Macias denied. The Riverside County District Attorney charged Macias with kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)) and two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)). In June 1996, Macias 1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code. 2 pled guilty to false imprisonment in violation of section 236 and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of section 261.5.2 The court dismissed the original three counts and, per his plea agreement, sentenced Macias to five years’ probation. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals