Filed 7/7/23 P. v. Villalpando CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E079902 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2201458) ERICK ANGEL VILLALPANDO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean P. Crandell, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Wohl Law and David E. Wohl for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Erick Angel Villalpando was charged by amended felony complaint with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), 1 count 1) and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b), count 2). As to both counts, it was alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI). (Pen. Code,1 § 12022.7, subd. (a).) Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to both counts and admitted the GBI allegations. A trial court placed him on probation for a period of three years, on specified terms and conditions, including that he spend 120 days in county jail. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea (§ 1018), after learning that his teaching credential was revoked based on his conviction for a strike offense. The court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. He also contends the denial of relief violated his equal protection rights. The People concede, and we agree, that the court erred in denying his motion. We therefore reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 24, 2022, the Riverside County District Attorney (the district attorney) filed a felony complaint, charging defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), count 1) and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b), count 2). On May 17, 2022, the district attorney amended the complaint to add the allegation, as to both counts 1 and 2, that defendant personally inflicted GBI during the commission of the felony. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) 1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The court held a hearing that same day. At the outset of the hearing, the court stated that it had a chambers conference with the parties that morning. The court noted there was an issue as to whether, if defendant pled guilty, the People would be adamant that he needed to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals