Filed 5/10/23 P. v. Reta CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C096540 v. (Super. Ct. No. P06CRF0457) MANUEL RETA, Defendant and Appellant. In 2007, defendant Manuel Reta pleaded no contest to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. In 2021, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the 2007 conviction under Penal Code1 section 1473.7, asserting he was not adequately informed of the immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court denied defendant’s motion and defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. After the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, defendant appealed, asserting that the appeal was from the initial order denying the motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the conviction. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 Defendant now argues the trial court erred in finding he received an adequate advisement of the immigration consequences of his plea, and the trial court applied an incorrect standard of “reasonable diligence” in assessing the timeliness of defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction. The Attorney General counters that defendant appealed from a nonappealable order -- the order denying reconsideration -- and to the extent defendant seeks to appeal from the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction, the appeal is untimely. Finding merit in the Attorney General’s arguments, we will dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Defendant entered the United States in 2003, when he was 23 years old. In March 2007, he pleaded no contest to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) in El Dorado County Superior Court. He had two prior convictions in Sacramento County for burglary (§ 459). A Spanish interpreter assisted him during his court proceedings because he had a limited ability to speak or read English. When defendant reviewed the plea form, he signed where his attorney directed him to sign, but he does not believe the interpreter read the entire form to him. As a result of the conviction, the trial court placed defendant on three years of formal probation with 45 days in custody. In June 2007, defendant pleaded no contest to receipt of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) in Placer County. He was placed on probation in that case and served 180 days in custody. The judge in the Placer County case told defendant he would be taken into custody after completing his sentence, and defendant subsequently agreed to voluntary deportation. Defendant reentered the country but was caught and taken to El Dorado County for violating probation. He admitted the violation and served 180 days in custody. After completing the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals