Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SF98352 Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge.
IRION, J.
In 1995 Jesus Alberto Solis entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The court placed him on three years' probation. In 2010 Solis filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis to set aside the judgment and sentence. The court denied the petition. Solis appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 1995 Solis possessed marijuana for sale.
In his petition for writ of error coram nobis, Solis alleged as follows: During the plea proceeding, his attorney told him he would get out of jail sooner by pleading guilty. Counsel did not advise Solis that his guilty plea would subject him to deportation and deny him the ability to obtain legal residency in the United States. At most, counsel advised Solis that he might be deported. Based on counsel's advice and omissions, Solis entered the plea. In approximately 2007 Solis applied for a tourist visa. The application was approved, and the visa was set to expire in February 2011. Based on the pending expiration, Solis hired an immigration attorney. That attorney advised Solis he would be deported, would never be allowed to live legally in the United States and would likely lose any ability to return to the United States legally. Solis claimed he had a meritorious defense to the 1995 charges—that all evidence supporting the charges was circumstantial—and he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been aware of the immigration consequences of his plea.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court properly found that since a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mistake of law rather than a mistake of fact, such a claim is not an appropriate ground for relief on coram nobis; and (2) whether California should modify its coram nobis procedure to fashion "some form of postconviction remedy... to ameliorate the harshness of the situation in which fundamental constitutional violations have occurred but will go unremedied because the offender is now out of custody and unable to seek relief on habeas corpus." (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1105.)
We granted Solis permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Solis has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.