Filed 11/18/22 P. v. Rubio-Baez CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163056 v. (San Mateo County MARCO ANTONIO RUBIO- Super. Ct. No. SC077948A) BAEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant and appellant Marco Antonio Rubio-Baez was convicted of robbery on a plea of no contest in 2013. In 2021, he moved to vacate the conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7,1 which permits individuals who are no longer in custody to move to vacate a conviction or sentence on the ground that it 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” the plea. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) He appeals from the denial of this motion. We affirm. Further statutory references will be to the Penal Code except as 1 otherwise specified. 1 BACKGROUND I. The 2013 Conviction In 2013, Rubio-Baez was apprehended near a bank that had just been robbed, identified by bank employees as the person who had committed the robbery, and found to be in possession of the stolen bag of money and .31 gram of methamphetamine. The victim reported that Rubio-Baez had handed him a demand note, said he had five minutes to give him the money and started counting; the victim handed him a bag containing $4,000 cash and Rubio-Baez left. Rubio-Baez told the police he entered the bank with the intent to commit a robbery, gave a demand note to a banker and told him he had five seconds to hand over the money, then fled the bank with the money the banker gave him. Rubio-Baez said he knew it was wrong to rob the bank, but he needed the money to pay rent, buy a cell phone and send money to his mother in Mexico. Rubio-Baez was charged with second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)),2 possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), burglary (§ 460, subd. (b)), theft of property exceeding $950 (§ 487, subd. (a)), and possession of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he entered a plea of no contest to the robbery charge and admitted the offense was a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(19), and a violent felony under section 667.5, 2 The definition of robbery appears in section 211. Section 212.5 describes the degrees of robbery: Subdivisions (a) and (b) list types of robbery constituting first degree robbery and subdivision (c) specifies that “[a]ll kinds of robbery other than those listed in subdivisions (a) and (b) are of the second degree.” 2 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals