Filed 6/16/21 P. v. Ramos CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E076276 v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1203026) MARIO DUSTIN RAMOS, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W. Detienne, Judge. Affirmed. Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Mario Dustin Ramos, Jr., appeals from an order of the San Bernardino County Superior Court denying his petition made pursuant to subdivision 1 (a)(1) of Penal Code section 1473.71 in an effort to vacate his judgment of conviction. We affirm. BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). It also found true an enhancement of personal infliction of great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) In addition, defendant admitted a prior prison term. (Former § 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to seven years in state prison. This court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Ramos (April 15, 2014, E059030) [nonpub. opn.].) Upon his release in September 2018, defendant was transferred directly to the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In June 2019, defendant filed a section 1473.7 motion. That provision, which became effective January 1, 2017, authorizes a person no longer in criminal custody to move to vacate a conviction or sentence that is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error which resulted in damage to the person’s ability to understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) In his motion, defendant argued he was not aware his “plea” would cause him to lose his residency status and result in mandatory deportation from the United States. He averred his public defender did not mention those or any other adverse immigration consequences and, based upon his understanding of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 what she did tell him, he thought he would obtain an early release if he “accepted the plea.” The court appointed conflict counsel for defendant. At the hearing, the court denied the motion based upon the fact defendant was convicted by a jury. Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. DISCUSSION Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S 738, setting forth statements of the case and facts. Counsel suggests the following potentially arguable issue: whether the trial court erred when …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals