Filed 12/17/21 P. v. Soto CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E077046 v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1402590) JOSE LUIS MEZA SOTO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M. McCann, Judge. Affirmed. David Zarmi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 Defendant and appellant, Jose Luis Meza Soto, filed a third motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7,1 which the court effectively denied. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant’s first motion and in refusing to hear his third motion. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle in which defendant was sitting in the back seat. The officer’s partner observed “illegal narcotics in plain view in the back seat . . . .” The officers detained the driver and defendant. The officer’s partner showed the officer “a plastic baggie, filled with a white, crystal-like substance.” Through his “training and experience [the officer] immediately recognized the substance to be Methamphetamine.” The substance field tested positive for methamphetamine. The officer arrested defendant. Defendant asked why the driver was also being arrested. The officer responded that the driver had knowledge of the narcotics. Defendant replied, “‘But if it’s all mine, why should he get in trouble?’” 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The People charged defendant with transporting methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 1.) On October 27, 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to an interlineated offense of possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)2 Defendant initialed a provision of his plea agreement providing: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization will result from a conviction of the offense(s) to which I plead guilty/no contest.” Defendant also initialed a provision of the agreement providing: “I have had sufficient time to consult with my attorney concerning my intent to plead guilty/no contest to the above charge(s) . . . . My lawyer has explained everything on this Declaration …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals