Filed 5/31/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E070847 v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB027896) KAMAL ABDUL FRYHAAT, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Adrian R. Contreras and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 I INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Kamal Abdul Fryhaat is a citizen of Jordan who had been living in the United States for over 30 years. In 2001, he pleaded guilty to various drug- related offenses and admitted to having suffered a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange, defendant was released on his own recognizance on various terms and conditions. Defendant subsequently violated his release terms and was sentenced to six years eight months in state prison. Approximately 17 years later, in 2018, as he was facing deportation proceedings, defendant filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1473.7, arguing his conviction was legally invalid and not knowingly and intelligently made because neither his trial counsel nor the court advised him about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s motion, and defendant appealed. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate his conviction because the court summarily denied his motion without a hearing, without his presence, and without appointed counsel in violation of section 1473.7. He therefore requests the matter be remanded for a hearing consistent with the provisions of section 1473.7. The People respond defendant is partially correct and that the matter must be remanded. Specifically, the People assert defendant is entitled to a hearing, but 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 as recent amendments to section 1473.7 make clear, defendant does not have a right to appointed counsel and his presence can adequately be protected by use of telephonic or videoconference services. We reverse the order denying defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and remand the matter with instructions to the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to section 1473.7, evaluate defendant’s request for appointed counsel, and to consider the motion on its merits. II FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 6, 2001, defendant pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a); count 1); possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2); and operating a place for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366; count 3). He also admitted that he had suffered a prior prison term conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). In exchange, defendant was released ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals