Filed 5/13/21 P. v. Taghilou CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN THE PEOPLE, B303561 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A708409) v. FARAMARZ TAGHILOU, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Faramarz Taghilou moved pursuant to Penal Code1 sections 1016.5 and 1473.7 to vacate his 1988 conviction for oral copulation of a person under the age of 14 on the basis that he was inadequately advised about the immigration consequences of his no contest plea. Taghilou contends, and the People agree, that the superior court erred by denying Taghilou’s motion without a hearing. We too agree, and we reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Taghilou emigrated from Iran to the United States in 1983. Taghilou is not a United States citizen. A. Taghilou’s 1988 Conviction In 1987 the district attorney charged Taghilou with one count of oral copulation of a person under the age of 14 (former § 288a, subd. (c), renumbered as § 287, subd. (c); count 1) and three counts of lewd acts upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 2, 3 and 4). On August 22, 1988 Taghilou entered a no contest plea to count 1 in exchange for a “three year lid with a [section] 1203.02 [sic, 1203.03] diagnostic study” and the remaining counts dismissed. The prosecutor stated that the basis for the plea agreement was “witness problems” and “problems of proof.” At the plea hearing Taghilou received several advisements regarding his constitutional rights and other consequences of the plea. Among the advisements, the prosecutor stated: “If you are not a citizen, a conviction of this criminal offense could result in your deportation, exclusion from the United States, or denial of naturalization.” The prosecutor asked Taghilou if he understood 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 the immigration advisement; after conferring with his counsel, Taghilou stated, “Okay. Yes.” Following the advisements, Taghilou entered a no contest plea to count 1, and the court accepted the plea. At the subsequent sentencing hearing on January 5, 1989 the trial court placed Taghilou on felony probation. In 1992, when the probationary period had expired without further offenses, the court permitted Taghilou to withdraw his no contest plea and enter a not guilty plea. The trial court dismissed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals