Filed 11/10/20 P. v. Campos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ---- THE PEOPLE, C090579 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 93F08332, 93F09725, 93F10615) v. ALBERTO CAMPOS, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant Alberto Campos asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Because we find that defendant is not entitled to Wende review, and has not raised an arguable issue in his supplemental brief, we dismiss the appeal. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano).) BACKGROUND In 1994, in six consolidated cases, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), intimidation of a witness 1 (Pen. Code, § 136.1)1 and admitted an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1), robbery (§ 211), and second degree burglary (§ 459). In taking the plea, the trial court advised defendant “If you’re not a citizen of the United States, this plea can result in your being deported from the United States, excluded from admission to the United States or denied naturalization as a U.S. citizen.” Defendant confirmed he understood that consequence of his plea. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the agreed-to maximum sentence, an aggregate term of seven years eight months. The remaining charges were dismissed. In September 2017 defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Defendant claimed he had been denied effective assistance of counsel, because in 1994 his trial counsel had assured him his plea agreement would not lead to his deportation. The trial court construed the writ petition as a section 1473.7 motion to vacate the pleas based on the lack of advisement of the immigration consequences, appointed counsel, and requested briefing. Defendant waived appearance at the hearing, as he was in custody in North Carolina. The trial court considered the parties’ briefs and additional argument at the hearing. The trial court found defendant had received a good plea deal, given what his exposure was, that he had been properly admonished by the court as to the immigration consequences, and that at the time of the plea he did not appear concerned about the immigration consequences but rather the length of sentence he would receive. The trial court also considered trial counsel’s affidavit as to her standard practice and found defendant’s contradictory affidavit was not credible. Based on these conclusions, the trial court denied the motion. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION Review pursuant to Wende or its federal constitutional counterpart Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] is required only ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals