Filed 11/15/22 P. v. Ayala CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B317249 (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiff and Respondent, F000201307001) (San Luis Obispo County) v. JUAN DAVALOS AYALA, Defendant and Appellant. Juan Davalos Ayala appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate two 28-year-old convictions. He contends the motion should have been granted pursuant to either Penal Code1 section 1473.7 or section 1016.5. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1993, prosecutors charged Ayala with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a); count 1) and leaving the scene of an accident involving injury or death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count 2) after he slammed into the rear 1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code. of a vehicle, killed its driver, and fled on foot. He was held to answer on both charges at the preliminary hearing. During a discussion at the conclusion of that hearing, prosecutors noted that there was a “border patrol hold” on Ayala. Prosecutors subsequently added a charge of vehicular manslaughter (§ 192, then-subd. (c)(3); count 3) to the two charges in the complaint. They reached a plea deal with Ayala two months later. Before accepting the plea, the trial court asked Ayala if he was a United States citizen. He said that he was not. The court then asked if Ayala “underst[oo]d that if [he was] convicted . . . that [his] conviction may result in exclusion from the country, deportation, and denial of citizenship.” Ayala said that he understood. He also said that he had spoken with his attorney about the case. He then pleaded no contest to counts 2 and 3, and the court dismissed count 1. Twenty-eight years later, Ayala—purportedly then in federal custody and immigration removal proceedings—moved to vacate his convictions pursuant to section 1473.7, claiming that plea counsel2 “did not properly inform [him] of the immigration consequences that would accompany [his] plea.” Nor did Ayala “recall speaking about the immigration consequences” of his plea with counsel or about the fact that “he was not a U.S. citizen.” The trial court that accepted his plea similarly “did not properly advise [him] that [he] was subject to detention or possible denial of relief, voluntary departure, bar from reentry, and/or any other [immigration] consequence.” Had counsel or the court properly advised him, Ayala would have either gone to trial or negotiated an alternate, immigration-neutral plea. 2 Different attorneys represented Ayala at the preliminary hearing and during plea proceedings. 2 Plea counsel testified at the November 2021 hearing on Ayala’s motion. He said that he did not recall representing …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals