Filed 7/19/23 P. v. Garcia CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, G061714 v. (Super. Ct. No. 05NF3600) MARVIN OSUARD GARCIA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Adrian R. Contreras and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Marvin Osuard Garcia appeals an order denying his motion to vacate a 1 guilty plea he entered in 2006. (Pen. Code, § 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) He contends the motion should have been granted because he did not understand the immigration consequences of his plea. Based on our independent review of the record, however, we conclude appellant failed to carry his burden of proving his alleged lack of understanding by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling. BACKGROUND Born in El Salvador, appellant came to the United States when he was eight years old. He was a good student and graduated from high school in 1989. However, in the fall of 2005, he was charged in a felony complaint with possessing methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Appellant had private counsel early on in his case, but after his preliminary hearing, Deputy Public Defender Diane Herring-Ysaguirre took over his representation. She appeared at several court proceedings with appellant and was his attorney of record when he pleaded guilty on July 31, 2006. The terms and conditions of appellant’s plea agreement are set forth in a change of plea form that was filed with the court on that day. The form states appellant was facing a minimum sentence of sixteen months in prison, and a maximum sentence of three years, for his alleged drug offense. But, in exchange for pleading guilty, he would instead get one year in jail and three years’ probation. The agreement also called for appellant’s probation to be revoked on three unrelated cases. Appellant personally initialed several of the provisions on his change of plea form, including paragraph 11, which states: “Immigration Consequences: I understand if I am not a citizen of the United States, my conviction for the offense 1 Unless noted otherwise, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 charged will have the consequence of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Appellant also initialed paragraph 20, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals