Filed 3/18/22 P. v. Meza CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B312329 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA038036) v. LUIS FRANCISCO MEZA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David Walgren, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Edward Myers for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________ Luis Francisco Meza appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1473.7. In 2001, appellant entered into a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to one count of second degree robbery. On February 4, 2021, appellant filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7.2 The trial court denied the motion based on its own credibility and factual findings following its review of the court file and a hearing at which appellant testified and the court heard argument. Appellant contends that because he established by a preponderance of the evidence that he lacked a meaningful understanding of the adverse immigration consequences of his plea, the trial court erred in denying his section 1473.7 motion to vacate his conviction. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL3 BACKGROUND On November 26, 2000, appellant and codefendant Donald Lee McClellan approached two boys (10 and 11 years old) riding bicycles. McClellan pointed a knife at one of the boys and demanded both bicycles. As the victims fled on foot, appellant and McClellan picked up the bicycles and left. The next day, police learned that appellant had pawned one of the bicycles at a pawnshop. Police contacted appellant, who admitted taking and 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2Appellant also sought relief under section 1016.5 but subsequently withdrew those grounds for the motion. 3Appellant pleaded guilty before a preliminary hearing was conducted. These facts are drawn from the probation report and the factual basis for the plea established in the plea proceedings. 2 pawning the bicycle. Thereafter, appellant turned himself in. The pawned bicycle was recovered undamaged, but the other bike was not recovered. Appellant stated that he had given a ride to McClellan and they stopped at a liquor store. When appellant came out of the store, McClellan was talking to the two victims. McClellan told appellant to pick up one of the bicycles, and they put both bikes into appellant’s car. Appellant pawned one of the bicycles for $35, which he used to buy food. When the detective called him, he turned …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals