Filed 1/12/21 P. v. Le CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H047423 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1759938) v. SON THANH LE, Defendant and Appellant. After pleading no contest to two sex-related crimes, appellant Son Thanh Le filed a motion under Penal Code section 1018 to withdraw his plea. Le asserted that his plea was unknowing because his counsel had not adequately informed him of the immigration consequences of his convictions. The trial court denied the motion. It found Le had been advised of the possible immigration implications of his no contest plea prior to its entry and had not established by clear and convincing evidence that he would have made a different decision if he had had more time to consider its immigration ramifications. On appeal, Le argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Further, Le contends that his defense counsel provided prejudicially ineffective assistance by failing to give him adequate time in which to consider the immigration consequences of the proposed plea agreement. For the reasons set forth below, we reject Le’s claims and affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between January 2012 and March 2017, Le committed multiple sexual offenses against his niece, who was then a minor.1 In December 2017, the Santa Clara County County District Attorney filed an information charging Le with one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger, in violation of Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b)2 (count one), and four counts of lewd or lascivious act on a child by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, in violation of section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (hereafter section 288(b)(1)) (counts two through five). The trial court appointed the public defender to represent Le. Le was tried before a jury in October and November 2018. On November 14, 2018, the trial court declared a mistrial after the jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Following the mistrial, on November 27, 2018, Le pleaded no contest pursuant to a written plea agreement to two violations of section 288(b)(1) before the same judge who had presided over his earlier trial. The plea agreement provided that Le would serve five years in prison on each count, to run concurrently with each other, and would waive his entitlement to his pre-sentencing custody credits. In exchange, the information’s remaining counts would be dismissed. In his written plea agreement, Le initialed a box next to a section entitled “immigration consequences” (capitalization omitted), that stated “I understand if I am not a citizen of the United States, my plea of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals