Filed 1/4/21 P. v. Garcia CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B303684 (Super. Ct. No. 1329359) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County) v. SALVADOR MUNOZ GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. Salvador Munoz Garcia appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate his no contest plea to transporting methamphetamine. (Pen. Code,1 § 1473.7; see Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) The grounds for Garcia’s appellate challenge are not precisely clear. He appears to contend that: (1) based on the terms of his plea, he is entitled to dismissal and expungement of his conviction pursuant to Proposition 36 (Prop. 36; see § 1210 et seq.), and (2) he would not have accepted the plea had counsel explained the difference between transporting 1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code. methamphetamine for personal use and transporting methamphetamine for sales purposes. We disagree with both contentions, and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY During a December 2009 traffic stop, a sheriff’s deputy found 10 baggies of methamphetamine on Garcia’s person, and marijuana and a marijuana pipe in his car. Garcia told the deputy that he did not use methamphetamine, but did sell it to make money. He also said that he possessed the 10 baggies for sales purposes. Prosecutors charged Garcia with transporting methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and possessing marijuana while driving (Veh. Code, § 23222, subd. (b)). Garcia pled no contest to the transportation charge in exchange for the dismissal of the two possession charges. He acknowledged that his plea would have immigration consequences. He also said that his attorney and interpreter went over his plea with him and that he understood it. The trial court accepted Garcia’s plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and ordered him to serve three years of formal probation. In 2019, Garcia moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. In his motion, Garcia claimed that “[n]o one ever explained the difference . . . between transportation for [the purpose of] sales and transportation for personal use” to him, and that he was not advised that he would have been entitled to Prop. 36 relief had “the jury [made] a finding of ‘transportation for personal use.’” Had he been properly advised, he would not have entered his plea but would have instead proceeded to trial. 2 Trial counsel submitted a declaration in support of Garcia’s motion. Counsel asserted that he did not advise Garcia that the jury would have had to find that Garcia transported methamphetamine for the purpose of sales to convict him. Counsel also asserted that Garcia ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals