Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC800474.
Premo, J.
On July 17, 2008, defendant Blanca L. Batres pleaded guilty to two felonies. Both felonies are grounds for removal (deportation) if the defendant is not a United States citizen. On or about March 1, 2010, defendant, a noncitizen, was taken into custody by the United States Department of Homeland Security Customs Enforcement based upon these two felony convictions. On March 29, 2010, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5 to vacate her guilty plea, arguing that she had not been properly advised about the immigration consequences of her plea. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals from that order.
Further unspecified section references are to the Penal Code.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (case No. H035640), which we have previously ordered considered together with this appeal. We dispose of the petition for habeas corpus by separate order filed this day. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(2)(B).)
I. Facts
Defendant’s plea was to charges of using a stolen credit card (§§ 484g, subd. (a), 487) and forging a check (§ 470, subd. (d)). Unauthorized transactions on the credit card totaled $1,679. The check was cashed at the victim’s credit union for $1,420. When the victim reported the unauthorized transactions, she identified defendant, her house cleaner, as the only person who had access to the property. Surveillance video showed defendant buying items at a Target store on the same day the victim’s credit card was used there. When confronted by police, defendant admitted that she took the card and the check while she was cleaning the victim’s house.
After her arrest, defendant was released on her own recognizance but when she failed to appear for a hearing in early July 2008, she was taken into custody. She was in custody when she entered her plea in exchange for the court’s offer of probation and immediate release. The hearing took place using a court-certified Spanish language interpreter. The trial court’s advisements proceeded as follows:
“Miss Batres you’re charged with two felonies. One is grand theft. You unlawfully took money, over $400, between November and December of last year.
“Count 2 is a forgery of a check on December 7 of last year, [section] 470 [subdivision] (d) of the Penal Code. Maximum exposure could be three years and eight months in state prison. The offer to you is that you’ll be on probation, and 60 days’ county jail, top and bottom--is the court offer.
“Listen carefully. If you accept the offer you’ll be on probation. If you violate probation you can go to prison for three years, eight months; parole three years; one year prison if you violated parole.
“At sentencing the judge must order restitution, must order a restitution fine of $200 minimum, $10,000 maximum.
“You can no longer own firearms or ammunitions.
“You’ll have to submit to a blood sample, saliva sample, and fingerprints.
“And if you are not a citizen of the United States, you could be deported, denied readmission, or denied naturalization.”
The court immediately went on to describe the rights defendant was relinquishing by pleading guilty and asked defendant if she understood and gave up those rights, to which defendant replied, “Yes.”
In connection with defendant’s motion to vacate the plea, an immigration attorney submitted a declaration in which she stated that either of defendant’s convictions “causes her to be subject to removal from the United States.” Had immigration counsel been consulted at the time the plea was entered, she would have advised that “two, and arguably even one misdemeanor conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude with a sentence of less than six months, would cause her to be removable from the United States with no possible defense to removal.” Defendant stated in her declaration that she did not understand the trial court’s advisement of the immigration consequences of her plea and that if she had, she would have “stopped the proceedings and asked questions and would not have admitted to two felony convictions that would have resulted in my deportation.”
The trial court denied the motion, finding, “the judge properly advised defendant of the potential immigration consequences” and that “defendant had almost no chance of prevailing at trial. In this case, she was videotaped committing the crime as well as confessed.”
II. Discussion
We have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.