Filed 9/27/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D073436 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS152019) PABLO GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed. Laura G. Schaefer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Seth M. Friedman and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In August 2000, Pablo Gonzalez pled guilty to possession for sale of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, §11359.) The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to 74 days in custody and three years' summary probation. After serving his 74 days in custody, Gonzalez was deported in October 2000. Gonzalez reentered the United States about a year later. He subsequently was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), criminal threats (Pen. Code,1 § 422), and domestic battery (§ 243, subd. (e)). In June 2002, Gonzalez was deported again. He reentered the United States, but was deported yet again in April 2017. On January 1, 2017, section 1473.7 became effective. That statute allows a person no longer imprisoned or restrained to move to vacate a conviction or sentence for one of two reasons, including that "[t]he conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party's ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere." (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) In August 2017, Gonzalez moved to vacate his 2000 conviction under section 1473.7. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied Gonzalez's motion. Gonzalez appeals, contending the court erred in denying his motion under section 1473.7. Specifically, he claims he established prejudicial error based on his counsel's failure to adequately advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea and failure to seek an immigration safe alternative disposition. We conclude Gonzalez's arguments lack merit. As such, we affirm. 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Guilty Plea In July 2000, Gonzalez was arrested after crossing the border in a vehicle containing 74 pounds of marijuana. He was charged with transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). Gonzalez ultimately pled guilty to possession of marijuana for sale at a hearing on July 26, 2000 at his arraignment in the high intense drug trafficking area court. At that hearing, two other defendants were present. The court asked the defendants if they could read and understand English. Gonzalez responded in the affirmative. The court then informed the defendants of the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea: "Each of you should understand if you're not citizens of the United States, your guilty plea will affect your status in this country. And ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals