People v. Simpson CA3


Filed 8/30/22 P. v. Simpson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ---- THE PEOPLE, C093708 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16CF00158) v. RICKY OLIVER SIMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Ricky Oliver Simpson is a noncitizen who moved to the United States in 2013. He appeals from the trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate his 2016 drug trafficking conviction, which subjects him to removal from the country under federal immigration law. Arguing he would have rejected the plea had he correctly understood the immigration consequences, defendant contends his conviction is invalid due to prejudicial error. We will affirm. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Defendant’s crime and plea In December 2015, defendant was stopped by police for driving through a stop sign at approximately 10 miles per hour. When police searched his car, they found approximately 30 pounds of marijuana. Defendant was arrested and charged with transportation of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)) and possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.) In June 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to violating Health and Safety Code section 11359. As part of his plea, he signed a form setting forth the rights he was waiving. Among other things, he initialed the box next to the statement: “If I am not a citizen, I am hereby advised that conviction of the offense for which I have been charged may have the consequences of deportation[ ], exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. By signing this form, I acknowledge that, if it applies to me, I am aware of this potential circumstance, have discussed it with my attorney (if I have one,) and am entering this plea with full knowledge of the potential immigration consequences.” The first sentence of this statement mirrors the text of Penal Code section 1016.5, subdivision (a),1 which contains the immigration advisement to be given to defendants before acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Defendant signed the form and declared under penalty of perjury that he had “read, understood, and initialed each item above, and everything on the form is true and correct.” Defense counsel Ryan Lamb (Lamb) also signed the statement indicating that he had “reviewed this form with my client and have explained each of the defendant’s rights to him/her and answered all his/her questions with regard to his/her plea. Further, I 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 have discussed with my client the content, substance, and meaning of all items and paragraphs initialed by him/her. I have [also] explained …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals