Filed 9/18/13 P. v. Lambey CA2/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

JEAN LAMBEY, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B245504 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BA161388) 

THE COURT:* 

 Jean Lambey (defendant) appeals following the denial of her motion to vacate her 

1998 guilty plea to one count of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code 

section 245, subdivision (a)(1).1 The trial court granted defendant’s request for a 

certificate of probable cause. 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examination of 

the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that she had 

been unable to find any arguable issues. On May 1, 2013, we advised defendant that she 

had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished 

us to consider. No response has been received to date. 

 *

 BOREN, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J. 

1 All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise. 
2 

 The record shows that, on July 23, 2012, defendant filed a motion to vacate her 

1998 guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In the motion, defendant 

stated that she did not recall her attorney at the taking of the plea asking her if she was a 

United States citizen or advising her that the guilty plea would permanently and 

negatively affect her immigration status and future applications. Her attorney did not 

advise her to consult an attorney with specialized knowledge of United States 

immigration laws. 

 The record contains a minute order dated March 24, 1998, stating that defendant 

pleaded guilty to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon. There is no reporter’s 

transcript of the plea hearing. The minute order shows that defendant was advised, “If 

you are not a citizen, you are hereby advised that a conviction of the offense for which 

you have been charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from 

admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the 

United States.” Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on three 

years of formal probation. 

 On November 19, 2001, the trial court terminated defendant’s probation. The 

minute order from that proceeding states that the trial court granted defendant’s motions 

pursuant to sections 1203.4 or 1203.4a and 17. Although there is no reporter’s transcript, 

it appears the court reduced defendant’s offense to a misdemeanor, allowed her to 

withdraw her plea of guilty, and dismissed the information under section 1203.4. In her 

motion to vacate, defendant noted that a section 1203.4 motion is of no consequence for 

immigration purposes, citing People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 879-880 (defendant 

deported despite the expungement of his record under sections 1203.3 and 1203.4). 

Defendant notes that immigration authorities are free to ignore state rehabilitative 

reductions and expungements for immigration purposes, citing Murillo-Espinoza v. I.N.S.

(9th Cir. 2001) 261 F.3d 771, 774 (court adopts conclusion of Board of Immigration 

Appeals that Congress intended to establish a uniform federal rule precluding recognition 

of subsequent state rehabilitative expungements of convictions). 
3 

 In denying defendant’s motion to vacate her 1998 plea, the court below observed 

that the minute order clearly reflects that defendant was advised of her immigration 

consequences by either the district attorney or the court in the taking of the plea. The 

court also noted that under section 1203.4, defendant’s plea had already been withdrawn 

and the case dismissed, and “technically, there is no case.” Defense counsel requested 

that, if the court was inclined to deny the motion to vacate, it do so without prejudice so 

that he might further research the issue and resubmit the motion if the research proved 

fruitful. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has 

fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

The order denying the motion to vacate is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.