Filed 8/18/21 P. v. Salinas CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082342 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF331598) v. LUZ EVELIA SALINAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda M. Reed, Judge. Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kari Ricci Mueller and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J. Defendant Luz Evelia Salinas appeals from an order denying her 2020 motion to vacate a 2016 conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7.1 The superior court concluded that Salinas did not meet her burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that she failed to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of her plea and that she was prejudiced. These conclusions and the underlying credibility determinations were based on the superior court’s personal observation of Salinas’s testimony. Applying the independent standard of review, which gives particular deference to factual findings based on the superior court’s personal observations of witnesses, we conclude the superior court did not err in denying the motion to vacate based on the failure to establish prejudice. We therefore affirm the order denying the section 1473.7 motion. BACKGROUND Salinas was born in Mexico in May 1965. She came to the United States around 1982 or 1983 and became a legal permanent resident in 1990. At the time of her plea, Salinas had her two daughters, a grandson, and a son-in-law living with her. Salinas states that if she were removed to Mexico, she would not be able to work there, would not be able to take her family with her, and would have no place to live. Salinas asserts she was from Guerrero, Mexico, a very dangerous part of Mexico that is corrupt and full of violence. Salinas’s declaration and her testimony did not address many of the personal details provided in People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510 (Vivar), People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (Mejia), and People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998 (Camacho). For instance, the information did not include (1) the identity of the persons with whom she came to the United States; (2) the persons with who she lived upon arrival; (3) facts about her grandparents, parents, and siblings; (4) the ages and 1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. citizenship of her daughters, son-in-law, and grandson; (5) the schools, if any, she attended in the United …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals