People v. Caro CA4/3

Filed 7/21/22 P. v. Caro CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, G060941 v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF2259) CARLOS EDUARDO CASTANOS OPINION CARO, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of R. Chris Lim and R. Chris Lim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Defendant Carlos Eduardo Castanos Caro filed a motion to vacate his prior drug-related convictions, asserting he did not meaningfully understand the immigration 1 consequences of his guilty pleas. (See Pen. Code, § 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court denied the motion “without prejudice,” stating defendant could refile the motion if there was “something further.” On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We asked for supplemental briefing as to whether the denial of a motion “without prejudice” is an appealable order. Under the circumstances, we find the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion was on the merits and is res judicata, so it is an appealable order. (See In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763, 768.) We have further reviewed the record and have found no other arguable issues, so we affirm the order of the court. I PROCEDURAL HISTORY The prosecution charged defendant with five drug-related crimes. Prior to pleading guilty, the trial court advised defendant and a codefendant “if you’re not citizens of the United States, your pleas will result in deportation, denial of naturalization, or exclusion from admission to the United States pursuant to federal law.” The court asked defendant if he understood, and he said, “Yes.” Defendant initialed the same immigration advisement on a signed felony plea form. Counsel also signed the form and averred: “I have advised defendant of immigration consequences . . . .” The trial court imposed three years of formal probation. Defendant later violated probation. The court sentenced defendant to two years to be “served in any penal institution.” 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate his convictions, averring: “The Public Defender advised me to plead guilty. I was not advised of immigration consequences. I am challenging this conviction because it is currently causing me my removal from the United States and my court proceedings in seeking asylum. If I would of known this would cause me immigration consequences I would …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals