Filed 2/4/21 P. v. Diosdado CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E073901 v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1600033) MARTIN MUNOZ DIOSDADO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen and John M. Monterosso, Judges. Affirmed. Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Mary Katherine Strickland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 I. INTRODUCTION In 2016, defendant and appellant Martin Munoz Diosdado, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to several felony offenses he committed while driving drunk. In return, he was sentenced to a total term of three years in state prison with 517 days’ credit for time served. Sometime after his release from prison, defendant was placed into removal proceedings by the federal government and detained in an immigration facility. In 2019, defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1473.7, arguing he was not advised of, and did not understand, the immigration consequences of his plea. In an ex parte proceeding, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding “[d]efendant was advised by both defense counsel and the court that his plea would result in his deportation.” On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea without a hearing and without appointing counsel in violation of section 1473.7. Although the trial court erred in denying the section 1473.7 motion without a hearing, we find the error to be harmless and affirm the judgment. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant drove his vehicle while drunk with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or more. While inebriated, defendant hit a person with his vehicle, causing the person to suffer injury, and then fled the scene. Defendant had previously been convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol on three separate occasions. 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 On September 27, 2016, defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)); failure to give assistance and identifying information in an accident involving personal injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)); and driving while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent or more, causing injury (Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subd. (a) & 23578). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered three prior convictions for driving while under the influence. Prior to pleading guilty, defendant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals