Filed 7/ 1/16 P. v. Valadez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
MANUEL ALCALA VALADEZ , Defendant and Appellant. G05 2774 (Super. Ct. No. 9 7CF 0042 )

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a n order made after judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson , Judge. Affirmed.

Carol i n e R. Hahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 In July 1997, d efendant Manual Alcala Valadez ple aded guilty to simple possession and possession for sale of heroin and cocaine, and admitted various sentence
enhancements . ( Health & Saf

. Code , §§ 1135 0, subd , (a), 11351 , 11370, subd s

. (a) & (c); Pen. Code, § 12022.1

. ) The court sentenced him to two years in prison.

In September 2015 , defendant fi led a motion to vacate his guilty plea on the grounds that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the plea ; (2) the court did not properly advise him of the potential immigration consequences of the plea ; (3) the court failed to provide a Spanish language in ter preter , and (4) a writ of
coram nobis provide d an avenue for granting the requested relief

.

D efendant su bmitted a declaration in support of the motion which s tated: “Neither my Public Defender nor the court advised me that entering such a plea would have immigration consequences for me. I never would have pled guilty to the drug charge and agreed to this disposition if I had known that it would affect my immigration status. My primary language at the time was Spanish. I did not speak, read , write, or understand English fluently at the time. I did not have an interpreter present at the time
to translate the information into Spanish. [¶]

. . . Had the court advised me of the immigration consequences, at least I would have consulted with an immigration attorney
and had the opportunity of obtaining a safe disposition to my conviction, thereby still pleading to charges that would not have had any immigration consequences. The court also failed to notify me that I could b e deported or be subject to removal proceedings upon entering a guilty plea.”

The c ourt denied the motion and f ound : ( 1 ) it lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the ineffective assistance claim and , besides, there was no deficient performance or resulting prejudice; ( 2 ) defendant was properly advised by the court and, in any event,
he made no showing of prejudice ; ( 3 ) the record did not support the claim defendant did not understand English or the proceedings ; and (4) defendant was not eligible for relief
b y writ of coram nobis

. Defendant timely appealed.3 W e appointed counsel to represent d efendant

. She filed a brief which set
forth the facts and the procedural history of the case. Sh e did not argue against
d efendant , and advised s he had not found any issues to argue on his behalf. ( People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) However, to assist us in our independent review, s he suggested we consider whether the court abuse d
its discretion under Penal Code section 1016.5 by denying the motion.

We notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf

. H e f iled a one page response which contained no legal argument and simply requested “my appeal go forward, by my Counsul [ sic ] , and continue and proceed without delay , ” and that “my conviction be reexamined and my plea of guilty be withdr aw n

. ”
DISCUSSION We reviewed the record according to our obligations under Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders , supra , 485 U.S. 738, considered the issues suggested by counsel, and f

ound no arguable issues on appeal.
B efore accepting a guilty plea, the court must advise the defendant of three specific, potential immigration consequences: deportation, exclusion, and denial of
naturalization. (Pen. Code, § 1016.5, subd. (a).) The advisements must appear on the record, but they need not be given orally by the judge in open court. Instead, a validly
executed written waiver i s a proper subs titute for a verbal admonishm ent. ( In re I barra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277, 285

- 286 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 360

- 361 ; People v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 519, 521

- 522 .)

To prevail on a motion to withdraw a plea under Penal Code section 1016.5, a defendant must establish: (1) the court failed to advise him as required; (2) there is more than a remote possibility that his conviction w ould have one or more of the specified adverse immigration consequences; and (3) had he been properly advised, he would not have pled guilty. ( People v. Superior Court ( Zamudio ) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 192, 199

- 200.) We review the court’s denial for abuse of discretion. ( Id . at p. 1 92 .)4 Paragraph 8 of t he guilty plea form in this case contained the three required immigration advisement s, separately initialed by d efendant in the box provided

. Further paragraph 22 , directly above defendant’s signature, recites, “I declare under penalty of perjury that I h ave read, understood, and personally initialed each item above and discussed them with my attorney, and everything on this form is true and correct.” And, as the court found, “There is no support , however, for the allegation that Defendant did
not underst and English and did not understand the proceedings.”

All told , the record before us shows d efendant read and understood the guilty plea form , including the immigration advisements, and he discuss ed them w ith his attorney before he pleaded guilty

. Becau se it appears defendant was properly advised of the immigration consequences , the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to vacate his guilty plea

. W e need not reach the alternative grounds for denial

. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

ARONSON , ACTING P. J.

FYBEL , J.