Filed 10/13/20 P. v. Quiroz CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E073027 v. (Super.Ct.No. ICR15593) REYNALDO VILLA QUIROZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Russell L. Moore, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Marty V. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 INTRODUCTION In 1992, defendant and appellant Reynaldo Villa Quiroz pled guilty to two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code,1 § 288, counts 1 & 2.) A trial court sentenced him to six years on each count to be served concurrently, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed him on formal probation for a period of five years, which included a term of probation that he serve 365 days in county jail. On January 1, 2017, section 1473.7 went into effect. (Stats. 2016, ch. 739, § 1.) It permits a defendant to challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea where prejudicial error affected the defendant’s ability to understand the immigration consequences of the plea. (§ 1473.7.) On April 25, 2018, defendant filed a motion to vacate his convictions under sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. The court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to vacate his convictions. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In 1991, defendant was 24 years old. He admitted to the police that he took the victim, an 11-year-old girl, to Palm Springs for five days, and they had sex three times. The victim said she had been defendant’s girlfriend for approximately one year. Defendant admitted knowing it was wrong to have sex with an 11-year-old child but said, “they were in love and what else could they do.” 1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 The factual background is taken from the probation officer’s report. 2 On June 5, 1992, the district attorney charged defendant with three counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14. (§ 288, counts 1-3.) At a plea hearing on June 19, 1992, defendant was assisted by a Spanish language interpreter. The prosecutor gave a series of advisements, asking defendant each time whether he understood. Defendant acknowledged that he understood the charges against him and the maximum penalty. At several points during the hearing, he said he did not understand, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals