Opinion
B229063
11-01-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMY JOHN FLETCHER, Defendant and Appellant.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA123965)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Janice Croft, Judge. Affirmed.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jimmy John Fletcher was charged by felony complaint in 1995 with one count of possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Represented by appointed counsel, Fletcher entered a negotiated plea of guilty to an amended count of possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). Prior to entering his plea, Fletcher was advised that, if he was not a citizen of the United States, his "plea today will result in deportation, denial of citizenship, denial of naturalization, denial of amnesty or reentry into this country." Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Fletcher on three years of formal probation on condition he serve 90 days in county jail. The original count was dismissed.
Represented by retained counsel, Fletcher filed a statutory motion to vacate his plea under Penal Code section 1016.5, which governs the duty of the trial court to admonish a defendant regarding the possible immigration consequences of his or her plea. The trial court denied the motion on March 8, 1999.
Fletcher filed a second statutory motion to vacate his plea under Penal Code section 1016.5 "dated March 2, 2010," which was denied by the trial court on May 10, 2010.
Fletcher neither appeared in court nor was represented by counsel at this proceeding.
On June 7, 2010 Fletcher filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's May 10, 2010 order. Fletcher checked the boxes indicating his appeal was from a "guilty (or no-contest) plea or an admitted probation violation" and "challenges the validity of the plea or admission." He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. The same day, the trial court granted Fletcher's motion to vacate his guilty plea, to enter a plea of not guilty and to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, subdivision (a) (dismissal of charges upon successful completion of terms of probation).
Fletcher's notice of appeal was received by the superior court clerk's office, but not filed. On January 5, 2011 we granted Fletcher relief from default for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.
--------
We appointed counsel to represent Fletcher on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On June 27, 2011 we advised Fletcher he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.
On July 7, 2011 Fletcher filed a typed one-page supplemental brief in which he claimed he had not been adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his conviction and his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to take steps to prevent any adverse immigration consequences.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Fletcher's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The record clearly belies Fletcher's claim the trial court failed to adequately advise him in accordance with Penal Code section 1016.5, subdivision (a). (See People v. Gutierrez (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 169, 174 ["substantial, not literal, compliance with section 1016.5 is sufficient"].) To the extent Fletcher's motion to vacate the judgment was based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the denial of his motion is not appealable. (People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 981-983.) The proper vehicle for Fletcher to challenge the denial of his motion is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (In re Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230, 237, fn. 2; Gallardo, at p. 983.)
The judgment is affirmed.
PERLUSS, P. J. We concur:
WOODS, J.
JACKSON, J.