Opinion
D059697
10-24-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DIONISIO SANTOS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. CNF002917)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.
Seventeen years after his guilty pleas to possession of a controlled substance and receiving stolen property, Dionisio Santos filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, seeking to set aside his guilty pleas. Santos contended that due to his 1994 guilty pleas he is subject to deportation and that he is not eligible to be released on bond due to the nature of his convictions. The trial court denied his petition.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Santos the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Santos has failed to file a brief on his own behalf.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1994, Santos entered guilty pleas to felony possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). Santos was placed on probation.
On March 1, 2011, Santos filed a petition for writ of coram nobis, or in the alternative, to withdraw his guilty plea. In his petition Santos claimed he had not been adequately advised of the possible consequences of his guilty plea on his status as an immigrant in this country. On March 2, 2011, the trial court ruled on the petition. In a written order the trial court denied the petition on several grounds, including that the change of plea form in 1994 included the statement: "I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States a plea of Guilty or No Contest could result in deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, and/or denial of naturalization."
Santos has filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. The brief indentifies possible but not arguable issues:
1. Did the trial court properly find the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel not to be an appropriate ground for relief on coram nobis?
2. Should California modify its procedures on coram nobis to provide a better remedy where habeas corpus and direct appeal are no longer available to the petitioner?
3. Does the case of Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. _____ [130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.2d 284] overrule People v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 519, on whether a properly executed waiver form, which informs a defendant of possible deportation consequences, is a proper substitute for a verbal admonishment required by Penal Code section 1016.5?
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Santos on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.