Filed 6/15/21 P. v. Salas CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E075277 v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA1100791) MISAEL MADRIGAL SALAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M. McCann, Judge. Reversed. Quadros & Cuellar, Micheli Quadros and Sarah Cuellar for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Kristine A. Gutierrez and Marvin E. Mizell Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2012, defendant and appellant Misael Madrigal Salas, a Mexican citizen, pled no contest to two misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure and one felony count of false 1 impersonation of another. Defendant voluntarily left the United States in April 2012 after immigration proceedings were instituted against him based on his indecent exposure convictions. In 2019, defendant filed a motion to set aside his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.71 (motion) and additionally relied on section 1016.5. He submitted his own declarations attesting that he would not have entered a guilty plea if he was informed by his counsel, and the court, of the immigration consequences at the time he entered into the plea. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The trial court excluded defendant’s declarations based on defendant not being available for cross- examination (he lived in Tijuana); denied any further continuance for defendant to set up a video conference to make him available for cross-examination; and refused to consider the motion under section 1016.5. Defendant appeals, contending (1) he was not afforded a hearing on the merits of the motion pursuant to sections 1016 and 1473.7; (2) the trial court failed to hear and make a ruling on the additional ground raised in the motion that he was entitled to relief under section 1016.5;; (3) the trial court should have granted the motion because the record supports that the trial court never gave him immigration warnings, which is grounds for the court to grant the motion pursuant to section 1016.5; (4) the trial court erred by finding that his declaration and his wife’s declaration submitted in support of the motion were inadmissible hearsay; and (5) once the declarations are considered, the motion should be granted by this court. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. SUMMARY OF FACTS Defendant pled guilty and no appeal was taken from the entry of his plea. As such, the only facts are those from the police report. On May 26, 2011, in Fontana, defendant exposed his genitals and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals