Filed 5/20/22 P. v. Chiriac CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E078082 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF138126) EMANUEL CHIRIAC, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Emanuel Chiriac appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate the judgment and set aside his plea. For the reasons forth post, we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 27, 2009, an amended information charged defendant with three counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 (Jane Doe) by use of force, violence, duress, menace and fear under Penal Code1 section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 1-3). The information also alleged that counts 1 and 2 occurred on or about May 2006, and count 3 occurred “on or about the year of 2006.” On November 5, 2009, as to count 1, a jury found defendant guilty of violating section 288, subdivision (a), a lesser included offense of section 288, subdivision (b)(1). The court declared a mistrial on its own motion as to counts 2 and 3. After the court and counsel conferred regarding a section 288.1 referral, the court appointed Dr. Robert Suiter to examine defendant and to provide a report. The court also ordered both defense counsel and the prosecutor to submit simultaneous sentencing memorandums. The court then ordered a Romanian interpreter for defendant’s next appearance, exonerated the current bail bond, and remanded defendant to custody. On May 5, 2010, reports by the probation department and Dr. Suiter were filed. Moreover, a section 1203.03 diagnostic study/recommendation was also filed. At the hearing on May 5, 2010, the court stated that it had read and considered the probation report, the court-ordered evaluations, and the sentencing briefs. After Doe and others addressed the court, the court granted defendant formal probation for 60 months under various terms and conditions. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified 2 On the day of retrial on March 16, 2011, as to counts 2 and 3, the trial court granted the prosecutor’s oral motion to add counts 4 and 5—violations of section 288, subdivision (a). Defendant then entered a guilty plea as to those counts. The court granted formal probation for a period of 60 months under various terms and conditions, including that defendant not leave California without first obtaining written permission from his probation officer. Defendant accepted the terms and conditions …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals