Filed 1/14/22 P. v. Fortune CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE THE PEOPLE, B307447 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. YA034511) LUKE FORTUNE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Dismissed. Law Office of R. Wayne McMillan and R. Wayne McMillan for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1997, Luke Fortune (defendant) pled no contest to one count of robbery. Twenty-two years later, defendant moved to vacate his plea on the ground that he was not advised of, and did not meaningfully understand, the adverse immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court denied the motion and defendant did not appeal that ruling. But a year later, defendant moved for reconsideration of the earlier ruling, the trial court denied that motion, and defendant noticed an appeal from the refusal to reconsider the earlier order. We consider whether defendant’s challenge to the denial of his motion for reconsideration is justiciable. I. BACKGROUND A. Defendant’s No Contest Plea In October 1997, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant in an information with two counts of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The information further alleged defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the robberies (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). At the time of the charged offenses, defendant was a legal permanent resident of the United States and had been for 11 years. Two months later, pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution, defendant pled no contest to one of the robbery charges. Defendant also admitted the corresponding section 12022 allegation. Defendant agreed—as expressed by his initials on a pre-printed written plea advisement form—that he was 1 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code. 2 entering his no contest plea “freely and voluntarily and with the full understanding of all the matters set forth in the [information] and in this form.” Among the advisements on the plea form checked and initialed by defendant was the following: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, the conviction for the offense charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” In signing the plea form, defendant verified he had discussed each …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals