Filed 5/31/23 P. v. Villa CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F085202 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF212391A) v. ALMA ROSAS VILLA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge. Law Office of Hristo Bijev and Hristo Bijev for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Dina Petrushenko, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Defendant Alma Rosas Villa appeals the denial of a motion under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1)1 to vacate her 2008 plea of no contest to felony welfare 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. fraud. The trial court determined Alma failed to prove (1) she did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of her plea and (2) her error was prejudicial. We decide whether Alma established a prejudicial error in her understanding of the immigration consequences by applying the independent standard of review adopted in People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510 (Vivar) and confirmed in People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311 (Espinoza) to the cold record presented to the trial court. First, the Attorney General has conceded the trial court erred in finding Alma meaningfully understood the adverse immigration consequences of her plea based on a section 1016.5 advisement that the conviction may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. Based on our independent review of the record, we agree. The evidence establishes it is more likely than not that Alma did not meaningfully understand and accept the immigration consequences of her plea. We follow Espinoza and several older cases that conclude the section 1016.5 advisement that the conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not establish that the defendant meaningfully understood the mandatory immigration consequences of a plea. Second, applying the independent review standard to the issue of prejudice, we find there is reasonable probability that Alma would have rejected the plea if she had correctly understood the adverse immigration consequences. At the time of the 2008 plea, she had lived in the United States since arriving in 1994 and had two daughters, then nine and six years old, who were United States citizens. The reasonable probability standard is met because this objective evidence of her ties to the United States adequately corroborates her declaration testimony addressing prejudice. We therefore reverse the order denying the section 1473.7 motion. 2. FACTS Personal Ties Alma was born in Mexico in November 1973 and came to the United States in 1994. She and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals