Filed 4/15/21 P. v. Ayala CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E074910 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF079501) JOSE MARIA AYALA, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Law Offices of Anthony J. Pullara and Anthony J. Pullara for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 Defendant and appellant Jose Maria Ayala, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s order denying his Penal Code1 section 1473.7 motion to vacate his guilty plea and conviction. He argues the trial court erred by denying the motion because when it denied the motion it improperly focused on the effectiveness of his counsel and failed to consider whether he meaningfully understood the adverse immigration consequences of his plea. He also asserts that this court should direct the trial court to grant his motion because he met his burden of proving prejudicial error that damaged his ability to meaningfully understand the adverse immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The People agree that the trial court erred in focusing on the effectiveness of his counsel but argue the matter should be remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion. Because the trial court applied an improper standard, we agree with the parties that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion and find the appropriate remedy in this case is to reverse the decision and remand for the superior court to reconsider the motion under the proper standard in the first instance. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant is a citizen of Guatemala. He entered the United States in 1992 with his parents when he was 14 years old. He became a lawful permanent resident in November 1992. Defendant taught himself English and completed high school. He was working two part-time jobs while attending college and lived with his family in the United States. 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On February 24, 1998, defendant, who was 19 years old at the time, and his girlfriend had an argument in the passenger compartment of defendant’s truck. The truck was parked in front of defendant’s girlfriend’s home. During the altercation, defendant physically struck his girlfriend, and at one point, his girlfriend got out of the truck. Defendant then locked the truck’s doors, preventing his girlfriend from getting back into the truck. Defendant’s girlfriend walked around the truck, got into the truck’s open bed, sat down, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals