Filed 2/4/22 P. v. Cesena CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E076213 v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV17002606) JESUS ARMANDO CESENA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shahla Sabet, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Sally Patrone Brajevich, 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, Charles C. Ragland, Eric A. Swenson, James H. Flaherty III, and Kaleigh L. Ragon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 INTRODUCTION In 2017, defendant and appellant Jesus Armando Cesena pled guilty to one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.) In 2019, he filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1473.7 to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction on the grounds that his attorney failed to investigate the immigration consequences of his plea, failed to inform him of the actual immigration consequences of his plea, and failed to seek an immigration-safe plea. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals, contending his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he faults his counsel for failing to advise him of the specific immigration consequences of his plea and for failing to negotiate a plea bargain with no adverse immigration consequences. He also argues that he did not have a meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of his plea. In addition, defendant claims the court failed to conduct a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7 since it prevented him from calling any witnesses, and it also erred by basing its denial, in part, on the weight enhancement. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.4, subd. (a)(1).) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On June 6, 2017, the Rialto Police Department Narcotics Unit executed a search warrant at a residence. Prior to the execution of the search warrant, officers observed a white truck driven by defendant leave the location. The officers followed defendant and 1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 The factual background is taken from the police report, which the parties stipulated to be the factual basis for the plea. 2 observed him meet up with a gray Jeep. He exited the truck, met with the occupants of the Jeep, and then walked back to the truck. He appeared to put an object in the truck bed before driving away. Defendant drove back to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals