Filed 9/12/22 P. v. Ramos CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F083939 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. M13886) v. JOSE LUIS RAMOS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Dale J. Blea, Judge. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J. STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY Jose Luis Ramos appeals, pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1237, subdivision (b), from an appealable order of the superior court in a felony case. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The 1997 Change of Plea and Sentence The Madera County District Attorney alleged in an information that Ramos committed two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 1 & 2), and alleged enhancements to counts 1 and 2 for personal use of a firearm in commission of a felony (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d).) On July 23, 1997, Ramos pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the firearm enhancement in exchange for a five-year maximum sentence and dismissal of count 2. On September 16, 1997, the trial court sentenced Ramos to serve five years in state prison, consisting of two years on count 1 and three years on the firearm enhancement.2 On October 14, 1998, this Court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Ramos (Oct. 14, 1998, F029574) [nonpub. opn.].) B. The 2021 Section 1473.7 Motion to Vacate On October 28, 2021, Ramos filed a section 1473.7 motion to vacate his conviction on the grounds of inadequate advisement regarding immigration consequences. On February 4, 2022, the trial court found Ramos’s motion factually unsupported and untimely. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Facts Underlying the Change of Plea On July 23, 1997, Ramos stipulated to the preliminary hearing evidence as the factual basis for his no contest plea to count 1 and admission of the firearm enhancement. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2Judge John W. DeGroot presided at the change of plea hearing; Judge Paul R. Martin pronounced sentence. 2. According to the preliminary hearing testimony, Ramos and his wife J. had a daughter, E.R. J. lived with E.R. in an apartment in Chowchilla. At about 10:00 p.m. on July 21, 1996, while J.’s friends A.G. and S.B. visited, Ramos entered J.’s residence without invitation. She ordered him out. J. and Ramos argued in front of the residence regarding their marriage. Ramos brandished a handgun and threatened to kill A.G. J. told S.B. to call the police …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals