Filed 4/8/21 P. v. Barrera-Izaba CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159282 v. GLENN JOSUE BARRERA- (San Mateo County Super. IZABA, Ct. Nos. SC076650, NF411195) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Glenn Josue Barrera-Izaba appeals from the order denying his motion to set aside his 2012 convictions because of prejudicial error concerning the possible adverse immigration consequences of his pleading no contest to four felony counts. We affirm. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2012, as part of a negotiated disposition, defendant, who was 24 years old and had a criminal record since 2009, entered pleas of no contest to two felony counts of insurance fraud (Pen. Code, § 5501) and two felony counts of grand theft (§ 487); seven remaining counts of fraud, forgery and grand theft were dismissed. Prior to doing so, All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1 otherwise indicated. 1 defendant executed a change of plea form with the following language: “I understand that if I am not a citizen, conviction of the offense for which I have been charged will have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or a denial of naturalization.” Prior to changing his pleas, defendant was asked by the court, “Do you understand if you’re not a citizen of the United States that conviction of these offenses could lead to deportation, denial of naturalization, or exclusion from admission to the United States pursuant to the laws of the United States.” (Italics added.) Defendant replied, “Yes, sir.” Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was admitted to three years’ probation upon specified conditions. Defendant completed probation successfully. He was therefore no longer deemed in constructive custody, meaning that relief in habeas corpus was not available. (See People v. DeJesus (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1130-1131.) In order “to ‘fill [this] gap in California criminal procedure’ ” where there was no “means to challenge a conviction by a person facing possible deportation who is no longer in criminal custody,” the Legislature enacted section 1473.7. (See People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969, 976.) Section 1473.7 authorizes a motion to vacate a conviction on various grounds. One of those grounds, the one relevant here, is the conviction “is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. A finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) 2 In October 2019, defendant filed a motion to vacate conviction …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals