Filed 6/2/23 P. v. Curiel CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT THE PEOPLE, B317814 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA060094) v. BEATRIZ ADRIANA CURIEL, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David Walgren, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Christopher L. Haberman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan S. Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________ INTRODUCTION Beatriz Curiel appeals from the order denying her motion to withdraw her no contest plea and vacate her convictions under Penal Code1 section 1473.7, subdivision (a). Curiel contends the trial court erred in denying her motion because she demonstrated she did not meaningfully understand the adverse immigration consequences of her plea, and it is reasonably probable she would have rejected the plea had she understood those consequences. We conclude Curiel satisfied her burden of establishing that she is entitled to relief under section 1473.7. We accordingly reverse the order denying Curiel’s motion and remand to the trial court with directions to grant the motion and vacate the convictions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Charges In a seven-count information filed on February 26, 2008, Curiel and her husband, Saul Desantiago, were each charged with two counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a); counts 1–2), one count of making a false financial statement (§ 532a, subd. (1); count 3), two counts of possession of a forged driver’s license (§ 470b; counts 4–5), and two counts of grand theft auto (§ 487, subd. (d)(1); counts 6–7). On March 5, 2008, Curiel was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to all counts. According to a preplea probation officer’s report, Curiel and Desantiago were accused of using the personal identification information and paycheck stub of Luz Salazar to purchase two vehicles from a car dealer, Vic’s Motors. Desantiago had been Salazar’s real estate agent, and he obtained Salazar’s personal 1 Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 information while representing her in the purchase of her home. After the home went into foreclosure due to Desantiago’s poor business dealings, he threatened Salazar and her husband that “something bad would happen” to them if they went to police. Salazar was afraid of Desantiago, and she later obtained a restraining order against Desantiago and Curiel. During the investigation, the police discovered that Curiel also had a driver’s license issued in another person’s name. At the time of her arrest, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals