Filed 4/30/21 P. v. Gecsey CA4/2 See Dissenting Opinion NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E075979 v. (Super.Ct.No. FCH800383) SZABOLCS MIHALY GECSEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shahla Sabet, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Mi Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Szabolcs Mihaly Gecsey appeals from an order of the San Bernardino Superior Court denying his Penal Code section 1473.7 petition to vacate his 2008 conviction. 1 BACKGROUND In 2000, when defendant was 15 years old, he immigrated to the United States from Hungary with his family. He graduated from high school and became a permanent resident in 2003. In 2005, he was convicted for selling marijuana, resulting in a sentence of 180 days in county jail and three years’ probation. In April 2008, within a couple of weeks of completing his probation term, defendant was arrested and charged with four felony violations of the Health and Safety Code: section 11378, possession for sale of a controlled substance MDMA, also known as Ecstasy (count 1); section 11379, subdivision (a), sale of MDMA, a controlled substance (count 2); section 11359, possession of marijuana for sale (count 3); and section 11360, subdivision (a), sale or transportation of marijuana (count 4). In August 2008, defendant entered a guilty plea to count 1, possession for sale of MDMA. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court dismissed the other three counts and sentenced defendant to one year in county jail and three years’ probation. The plea form included a statement initialed by defendant: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization will result from a conviction of the offense(s) to which I plead guilty . . . .” Defendant also answered in the affirmative when, in the course of accepting the plea, the court asked if he understood that if he is not a United States citizen, the consequences of his plea “will include” his deportation, denial of naturalization, or exclusion from the country. 2 In April 2009, defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to vacate his conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. He claimed counsel had failed to investigate defendant’s immigration situation and had not informed him of the specific immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court denied the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals