Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Cardona CA2/7 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN THE PEOPLE, B308787 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA087926) v. CARLOS PEREZ CARDONA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Lennon, Pilar M. Escontrias and Anna Rea, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Steven D. Matthews and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________ Carlos Perez Cardona appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion under Penal Code1 section 1473.7 to vacate his 2005 conviction of corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant, or child’s parent. Cardona, who at the time of his motion faced mandatory deportation to Mexico, argues on appeal that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and his attorney failed to negotiate an immigration-safe disposition that would have allowed him to avoid deportation. In our prior opinion, we rejected both arguments and affirmed. (People v. Cardona (May 25, 2022, B308787 [nonpub. opn.].) (Cardona I.) After granting Cardona’s petition for review, the Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider Cardona’s appeal in light of People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311 (Espinoza). In his supplemental briefing, Cardona contends his case is similar to Espinoza and there is “significant evidence” he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood the immigration consequences. However, Cardona has not shown he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea. Therefore, we do not reach the second step of the analysis under Espinoza—whether any misunderstanding as to the consequences of the plea constituted prejudicial error. (Id. at p. 319.) We affirm. 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Cardona’s Plea and Conviction of Corporal Injury to a Spouse, Cohabitant, or Child’s Parent The probation report indicated that in March 2005 Cardona was living with his ex-wife, Anna B., and their son. On the evening of March 12 Cardona and Anna got into a verbal argument. After Anna returned to her bedroom and shut the door, Cardona entered the room and pushed Anna to the floor. As she was lying on the floor, Cardona placed his knees on Anna’s arms and began twisting the skin around her right arm. Cardona then grabbed Anna’s arm and bit her left …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals