Filed 9/18/13 P. v. Lambey CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) a ppeals following the denial of her motion to vacate her 1998 guilty plea to one count of assault with a dead ly weapon in viola tion 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 defenda nt on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel file d 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 pe rsonally 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 assistan ce of counsel. In the motion, defendant
stated that she did not recall he r attorney at the taking of th e plea asking her if she was a United States citizen or advising her th at the guilty plea wo uld permanently and negatively affect her immigration status and future applications. Her attorney did not
advise her to consult an a ttorney with specialized kn owledge of United States immigration laws.
The record contains a minute order date d March 24, 1998, stating that defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of assault with a dead ly 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 th at a conviction of the offense for which you have been charged may have the cons equences 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 de fendant was placed on three years of formal probation. On November 19, 2001, th e trial court terminated de fendant’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. A lthough there is no reporter’s transcript, it appears the court reduced defendant’s o ffense to a misdemeanor, allowed her to withdraw her plea of guilty, and dismissed the information under sec tion 1203.4. In her motion to vacate, defendant noted that a sec tion 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 expungem ent of his record under sec tions 1203.3 and 1203.4). Defendant notes that immigr ation 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 ad opts conclusion of Bo ard 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 al ready been withdrawn and the case dismissed, and “technically, ther e 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 a nd resubmit the motion if the research proved
fruitful. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice.
We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her re sponsibilities 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

.