Filed 4/11/ 22 P. v. Tran CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAP PHUOC TRAN

,
Defendant and Appellant. B 308320

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA079094 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christian R. Gullon, Judge. Affirmed

. Law Offices of Gita B. Kapur & Associates and Geoffrey Pogue, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
A ssistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________2 INTRODUCTION

In 2007

, Lap Phuoc Tran was facing up to seven years in prison

, pleaded guilty under a negotiated plea agreement and received a prison term of three years. Before his plea, he signed an advisement of rights, waiver and plea form

. He acknowl edged that if he was not a citizen of the United States, his plea would result in deportation, exclusion from admission or reentry, and
denial of naturalization or amnesty in the United States. Thirteen years later, he moved to vacate his conviction
unde r Penal Code sections 1016.5 and 1473.7 , subdivision (a)(1)

, arguing that his advisement was inadequate and that had he
understood he would be deported

, he would not have ple a d ed guilty. 1 The trial court denied his motion.
We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Tran’s 1995 Convictio n, 199 5 Application f or Naturalization and 2019 Motion T o Vacate His Conviction
In May 1995
, Tran was convicted of s elling , transport ing or offer ing to sell a controlled substance , in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352 , subdivision (a)

, in an unrelated case.
Before t his conviction, Tran had applied to become a
naturalized United States citizen

. In August 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) , now subsumed into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) , denied his application because he was still on probation for his 1995
conviction. INS informed Tran that the denial was “without

1 Undesignated s tatutory references are to the Penal Cod e

.3

prejudice,” and he “appear [ed] to b e eligible for naturalization on
or after 5

- 2

- 98, and [he could] file a new application then.” In September 2019

, Tran filed a motion to vacate his 1995
conviction under sections 1016.5 and 14 73 .7. In December 2019

, the trial court granted Tran’s motion under section 1016.5 and found the request for relief under section 14 73 .7 moot

. The court vacated the conviction and set aside the plea. After the People
announced they could not proceed , the court granted Tran’s
motion to dismiss the case under sectio n 1382.

B. Tran’s 2007 Negotiated Plea Agreement and Conviction
In May 2007
, t he Los Angeles County District Attorney’s
Office filed a felony complaint against Tran, alleging two counts: transportation of a controlled substance in violation of H ealth and Safety Code section 11379 , subdivision (a)

, (count 1) and possession of a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378 (count 2)

. A s to both counts

, the
d istrict a ttorney alleged Tran’s 1995 conviction w as a prior
conviction under Health and Safety Code section 11370. 2, subdivision (a) , which provides for a three

- year enhancement

. Tran faced a maximum prison term of seven years

. Donald Rance Welch

, privately retained counsel, represented Tran

. In June 2007

, Tran agreed to a negotiated disposition for a
three

- year prison sentence. He signed a standard “Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form” (plea form).
Under the negotiated plea agreement , Tran would plead guilty to

count 1 , without admitting any enhancement allegations, in exchange for a three

- year prison sentence

. He initialed the form next to the advisement of the immigration consequences of his plea that if he was “not a citi zen of the United States, [he ] must4

expect [his] plea of guilty or no contest will result in [his] deportation, exclusion from admission or reentry to the United States, and denial of naturalization and amnesty.” Tran also
initialed the form next to the a cknowledgment that he “had a full opportunity to discuss with [his] attorney . . . the consequences of [his] plea .” Above his signature on the form, Tran acknowledged he had “read and initialed each of the paragraphs above and
discussed them with [his] at torney. [His] initials mean that [he has] read, understand [s] and agree [s] with what is stated in the paragraph.” Welch also signed the form stating

, “ [Welch has]
reviewed this form with [ his ] client. [Welch has] explained . . . the consequences of the plea.” On the same day

, the trial court held a plea hearing

. The court began by asking Tran if he read and understood the plea form, to which Tran responded, “Yes.” The court asked Tran if after reading the form he had any questions about any of his rights or the consequences of his plea. Tran responded, “No.”
T he court accepted Tran’s form. Regarding immigration consequences, the district attorney asked Tran, “I don’t know if this applies to you or not, but if you’re not a citizen of the United States, a conviction for this offense will have the consequences of denial of naturalization, denial of entry, denial of citizenship, and denial of amnesty. Do you understand that?” Tran responded, “Yes, ma’am.”
The d istrict attorney confirmed Tran was providing a Cruz
waiver to remain out of custody before sentencing so he could be present for the birth of his child

. 2

2 See People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247

.5 Tran pleaded guilty to count 1. The court said it “again will accept the plea . . . .”
For his Cruz waiver, Tran agreed to ple a d guilty to count 2
and admi t the prior conviction allegation, with the understanding
that count and allegation would be dismissed when he returned for sentencing. Regarding immigration consequences, the court said , “I am required to tell you if you’re not a citizen of this country, you’ll be denied rights to citizenship, naturalization, or the right of re

entry should you leave the country and then thereafter seek to return.” The court asked if Tran understood his rights and the consequences of his plea, and Tran responded, “Yes, sir.”
Tran pleaded guilty to count 2 and admitted the prior conviction allegation

. In August 2007

, Tran was sentenced to three years in state prison.

C. Tran’s 2009 Notice To Appear and Final Removal Order
In March 2009

, DHS served Tran with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, charging him as removable based on his
June 2007 conviction. In April 2009

, an immigration judge ordered Tran’s removal to Vietnam. Since July 2009

, Tran has been permitted to continue residing in the United States under an Order of Supervision. 3

3 T he Order of Supervision states Tran was being placed under supervision because the agency “has not effected your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law . . . .” Tran explains in his opening brief that Immigr ation and Customs Enforcement has been unable “ to effectuate [his] removal order6

D. Tran’s 2020 Motion T o Vacat e His 2007 Conviction According to Tran, he first learned of “the actual
im migration consequences of [his 2007 ] conviction” in February 2009 when he was placed in removal proceedings. Tran sought legal counsel in February 2018, who informed him of the possibility of post

- conviction relief under section 14 73 .7
, subdivision (a)(1)

. I n March 2020, approximately 13 years after his conviction,
Tran filed a motion to vacate his 2007 conviction under sections
1016.5 and 1473.7 , subdivision (a)(1)

. Tran argued the trial court
failed to advise him on the record of the immigration

conse quences of his plea, which damage d his ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept
the adverse immigration consequences of his guilty plea. In support of his motion

, Tran submitted a declaration describing his understanding of the immigration consequences
when he entered his guilty plea in 2007. Tran explained he did not understand that by pleading guilty

, he would be subjected to deportation and permanent separation from his family and that being “deported to Vietnam due to [ his] guilty plea was not something [he] had considered.” Tran explained he was 30 years old when he entered his plea in 2007, at which time he had been living in the United States for 30 years

, was a legal permanent
resident (his original status had been asylee)

, had two children from a prior relationship, was expecting his first child with his

due to the state of international relations between the United States and Vietnam . . . .” Tran was released, pending deportation or removal, on certain conditions, including that he “appear in person at the time and place specified, upon each and every request of the Service, . . . for deportation or removal.”7

wife and had never been back to Vietnam . Had he known of the immigration consequences that would result from his conviction, “[i]t would have greatly impacted [his ] decisionmaking process.”
Tran maintain ed he would not have pleaded guilty and instead would have made further inquiries with his attorney, sought an alternative plea

, or if none were available, he “would have preferred to take [his] case to trial.” Tra n remembered his “attorney telling [him] that the plea offer was good because if [Tran] took [his] case to trial then [he] would likely lose and be facing a longer prison sentence.” Tran did not remember discussing his “immigration status or the specific immigration consequences of the charges ” with his attorney. Tran said , “ [His] attorney never informed [him] that [Tran’s] conviction in this
case would make [him] inadmissible to the United States, would prevent [him] from being able to naturaliz e, and ultimately lead

to [his] deportation” or that it would exclude him from applying
for various forms of relief from removal. According to Tran, since his conviction in 2007, he ha d “completely turned [his] life around,” ha d steady employment and prov ide d for his family. Deportation would cause his family to “suffer an insurmountable amount of emotional and financial hardship.”
Tran also supported his motion with naturalization
certificates for his parents and birth certificates for his three

younge r siblings and two children born in the United States , all
dated before his plea . In addition, he submitted his marriage
certificate (his wife was born in the United States ), a birth
certificate for his third child born in the United States and letters from his wife, children, parents

, siblings and employer all dated after his plea.8 The trial court held a hearing in September 2020. The

court explained its understanding that “as a baseline before [the court allows] a withdrawal of a plea,” there has to be an “imminent” adverse immigration consequence. Given Tran’s
removal order ha d been in place for 11 years without being
executed , the court inquired about the existence of an “imminent”
harm. The court also asked about evidence “at the ti me of the plea that there would have been some other issue that would have changed” Tran’s decision to plead guilty. The court
observed that at the time of his arrest Tran “admitted to selling the dope [and] [s]aid he was doing it to pay for child support .”
The court noted the absence of a declaration from Welch, Tran’s plea counsel.
Tran primarily argued that the trial court and the district attorney did not substantially compl y with the immigration advisement requirement of section 1016.5 because they failed to
include deportation as one of the consequences. Tran also argued
that combined with the court’s failure to comply with section 1016.5, the notice to appear and removal order were sufficient to
establish adverse immigration consequences result ing from Tran’s guilty plea. Further, given the removal order, Tran “can be picked up and taken back into IC E detention at any moment . . . .”
T he People did not file an opposition

, but at the hearing

, point ed out that “there was a plea form in there and that [the prosecutor ] did advise him of the consequences.”
The trial court orally denied Tran’s motion wi thout explaining why

.9 DISCUSSION

On appeal, Tran argues the trial court erred in denying his
motion to vacate his conviction under sections 1016.5 and 1473.7

, subdivision (a)(1)

. But we conclude there was no error b ecause Tran failed to
establish the prejudice required under section s 1016.5 and 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1).

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

1. Section 1016.5 Section 1016.5 requires that the trial court advise the defendant of possible adverse immigration consequences before accepting a guilty or no contest plea . Specifically, “if the defendant is not a citizen of this country, conviction of the charged offense ‘may have the consequences of deportation,
exclusion from admission to the United St ates, or denial of
naturalization . . . .’” ( People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 957; see § 1016.5, subd. (a).) Under section 1016.5, when a court does not advise a defendant, who is not a United States citizen, of possible adverse immigration conseq uences before accepting a plea, the defendant may have his conviction vacated and withdraw his plea: “‘If . . . the court fails to advise the defendant as required by this section
and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which [the] defen dant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization . . . the court, on [the] defendant’s motion, shall vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo10

contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty.’” ( Arriaga

, supra , 58 Cal.4th at p. 957, quoting § 1016.5, subd. (b).) A defendant seeking relief under section 1016.5 must establish three elements: “(1) th at the advisements were not given; (2) that the conviction may result in adverse immigration consequences; and (3) that the defendant would not have pled guilty or no contest had proper advisements been given.” ( People v. Arriaga, supra , 58 Cal.4th at pp. 957

- 958.) “The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice.” ( People v.
Arendtsz (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 613, 617. ) Specifically, he “must prove it was reasonably probable he or she would not have entered a guilty, no contest or nolo contendere plea if properly
advised.” ( Ibid. ) We review an order denying a section 1016.5 motion for
abuse of discretion. ( People v. Sup erior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 192 ; People v. Limon (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1517

- 1518; accord, People v. Arendtsz

, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 617 .) “An exercise of a court ’ s discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd m anner that results in a manifest miscarriage of justice constitutes an abuse of
discretion.” ( Limon

, at p. 1518.)

2. Section 1473.7

, subdivision (a)(1) Under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), a defendant may

vacate a conviction if the defendant establishes a prejudicial error that prevented the defendant from understanding, defending against, or knowingly accepting the immigration consequences of the defendant’s plea: “ A person who is no longer in criminal custody may file a motion to vacate a c onviction or sentence [because] [t]he conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to11

meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequ ences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.”
A defendant seeking relief under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), must make two showings: (1) an error “damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept th e actual or potential adverse immigration consequences” of the plea, and (2) prejudice. 4 ( People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 528 ( Vivar ).) “[S]howing prejudicial error under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) means demonstrating a reasonable probabi lity that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration

consequences. ” ( Id. at p. 529.) A defendant must establish a ground for relief by a preponderance of the evidence under sect ion 1473.7. (§ 1473.7, subd. (e)(1).) “ [W] hen a defendant seeks to withdraw a plea based on inadequate advisement of immigration consequences, we have long required the defendant corroborate such assertions with ‘ “ objective evidence. ” ’” ( Vivar

, supra , 1 1 Cal.5th at p. 530.) “[T] he only finding that the court is required to make is whether the conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party ’ s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actua l or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere .” (§ 1473.7, subd. (e)(4).)

4 There are other requirements that must be met when moving to vacate a conviction under section 1473.7, subdivisi on (a)(1)

. (§ 1473.7, subd s . (b)(2) , (e)(1). ) But we need not address them since they are not challenged

.12 We review the denial of a section 1473.7 motion independently. ( Vivar

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at pp. 524

- 525.) “‘[U]nder independent review, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law.’ [Citation.] When courts engage in independent review, they should be mindful that ‘“[i]ndependent review is not the equivalent of de novo review . . . .”’ ( Id. at p. 527.) The motion is reviewed independently because of “ the history of section 1473.7, the interests at stake in a section 1473.7 motion, the type of evidence on which a s ection 1473.7 ruling is likely to be based, and the relative competence of trial courts and appellate courts to assess that evidence. ” ( Ibid .)

B. Tran Failed T

o Establish Prejudicial Error as Required by
Section s 101 6.5 and 1473.7, Subdivision (a)(1)
The t rial court did not err by denying Tran’s motion to
vacate his conviction under section s 1016.5 and 1473.7
, subdivision (a)(1)

. W e need not decide whether the proper
advisements were given under section 1016.5 or whether there

was an error damaging his abi lity to understand the immigration

consequences of his plea under section 1473.7 because he did not
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any error was prejudic ial

. Tran argues that evidence of his extensive ties to the
United States at the time of his plea sufficient ly corroborate d his
claim of prejudice. Tran also argues that, although the record
contain s no evidence of any discussion regarding an immigration

neutral plea, the absence of immigration

- relate d concerns in the probation officer’s report supported both his declaration that he did not remember any conversat ion with his attorney about immigration consequences and the inference that “ immigration13

was something that simply went overlooked ” during the plea proceedings. Finally, Tran argues that his failure to fully comprehend the immigration consequences of his plea led to hi s failure to inquire further or try to negotiate an immigration

neutral plea

. The People contend Tran’s extensive ties to the United
States , standing alone, were insufficient under Vivar to show
that immigration consequences were his “ primary concern ” during plea negotiations. The People argue that Vivar require s the court to consider the totality of the circumstances, and i n the
absence of any evidence, including from Tran’s plea counsel, of
the other V

ivar factors

, Tran failed to establish prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. The People dispute Tran’s characterization that immigration issues “simply went
overlooked

, ” pointing to sections of the probation officer’s report
that stated Tran was born in Vietnam and permanently registered in the United States

. As to the possibility of an immigration

- neutral plea, t he People note that the evidence against Tran was “overwhelming” and that the negotiated plea agreement of three years was a “great deal.”
In Vivar

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at pages 529 to 530
, the
S upreme C ourt explained : “ When courts assess whether a petitioner has shown that reasonable probability, they consider the totality of the circumstances . [Citation.] Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priori ties in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration

neutral negotiated disposition was possible.” ( Id. at pp. 529

- 530.)14 Considering the totality of the circumstances, as Vivar requires, Tran’s evidence of ties to the United States at the time of the plea, without more

, is insufficient to corroborate his claim that immigration consequences were his primary concern at the time of his plea

. 5 Tran offered little or no evidence that any of
the other “[f]actors particularly relevant to this inquiry” supported a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the negotiated plea deal. ( See Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at

p p

. 529

- 530.) There was no evidence that Tran had reason to
believe an immi gration

- neutral resolution was possible

. T here

was no evidence that Tran tried to negotiate such a resolution

, and he does not explain , given the charges against him, what an immigration

- neutral resolution could have looked like. T he
record also suggests the case against Tran was strong , and Tran’s
trial counsel thought they would lose at trial. I t does not appear
Tran had reason to believe an immigration

- neutral disposition was possible. Tran’s argument that he did not raise immigration issues
d uring the plea negotiations because he failed to comprehend the full nature of the adverse immigration consequences of his plea is
belied by the record. Tran knew he was not a citizen. The admonition in the plea form that Tran initialed and the prosecuto r’s and the court’s oral admonitions, at a minimum, apprised him that there were some adverse immigration

consequences. H is 1995 conviction and the denial of his

5 The question of what evidence is needed to adequately corroborate a defendant’s claim that immigration consequences were a paramount concern for purposes of establishing prejudice under section 1473.7 is currently before the Supreme Court. (See People v. Espinoza rev iew granted Sept. 15, 2021, S269647 .)15

application for naturalization in 1996 also alerted him, at least generally, to the possibili ty of immigration issues resulting from
a conviction. Tran’s argument that section 1473.7 does not require a showing that immigration consequences were a defendant’s “primary focus” during plea negotiations conflicts with Vivar ’s
instruction to consider the “ importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, [and] the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargai n.” Tran urges that the absence of evidence showing
he was focused on some other issue means he was focused on immigration consequences

. But t he record reflects that Tran ’s priority was to minimize his prison sentence

. T he only
conversation about the plea deal Tran recall ed having with his
counsel involved his counsel telling him that the deal was good
because Tran would lik ely lose at trial and face a longer prison

sentence

. The cases cited by Tran where relief was granted

— Vivar

, supra , 11 Cal.5th 510, People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859 ( Mejia)

, Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. __ [ 137 S.Ct. 1958

, 198 L.Ed. 2d 476 ] ( Lee ), People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th
998 ( Camacho )

, and People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th
67 ( Ogunmowo )

— are distinguishable

. In th o se cases , there was objective evidence beyond strong ties to the United States
demonstrat ing that immigration consequences were the
defendant ’s priority at the time of the plea and corroborat ing the
defendan t ’ s later statements that he would not have pleaded had
he known of the adverse immigration consequences

. (See Vivar,

supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 517, 530, 531 [ “Time and again, the record readily conveys how Vivar would have considered his immigration status ‘the most important part’ of his decision to16

plead” ; the evidence included “[t] rial counsel ’ s recollection and contemporaneous notes ” that reflected Vivar’s concerns about the immigration consequences of his plea ; letters Vivar wrote to the
trial court at or near the time of his plea in which he “objected to
hi s immigration hold and emphasized” his deep family ties to the
United States and said that his counsel failed to advise him that his plea would result in his deportation, and, had he been properly advised, he would not have pleaded guilty to the charge ; th e testimony of an immigration expert witness who established Vivar could have entered a plea agreement avoiding mandatory deportation ]; Camacho , supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1002

- 1003 [evidence included plea counsel ’s testimony that he discussed immigratio n consequences with all his clients and that he told
Camacho “‘ because of his immigration problems, maybe the court would entertain a motion to terminate early after maybe a year and a half and expungement, so that might help ’ ” ]; Lee, supra,
137 S.Ct. 1958 at pp. 1963 , 1960 [in the context of determining prejudice resulting from a Sixth Amendment violation based on
ineffective assistance of counsel

, the evidence include d testimony
from Lee and plea counsel that “‘deportation was the
determinative issue in Lee’s decision whether to accept the plea’” ; plea counsel further testified that although Lee’s defenses were weak, “had he known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial ”]; Ogunmowo

, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p p . 69 , 73 [evidence included an affidavit from p lea counsel that he was aware Ogunmowo was a Nigerian native who recently received his “‘green card

, ’” and he

“ ‘ recall[ed] Mr. Ogunmowo being concerned about what would happen to his immigration status if he was convicted in this

case ’ ” ].) In all these cases , except Mejia

, the defendants provided17

evidence from plea counsel and sometimes additional objective
evidence that the defendants raised the issue of immigration consequences with their counsel or the trial court before their plea

. 6
In Mejia

, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p age 863
, no declaration could be obtained because plea counsel was deceased. But in
addition to the defendant ’ s deep ties to the United States, the re was other objective evidence t o support a reasonable belief the defendant would not have ple a d ed guilty had he know n of the adverse immigration consequences . First

, the case against the
defendant had evidentiary weaknesses

. ( Id. at p. 872.) Second,
the defendant in Mejia pleaded “straight up” to the court rather
than under a negotiated disposition

, resulting in a probationary

sentence

. ( I

bid .) Third

, the court in Mejia concluded that, even if the defendant lost at trial, it was “ simply not realistic to imagine
that the court would have then imposed the maximum prison

sentence
, ” given that he had “ no criminal record and this was an unsophisticated crime .” ( Id. at p. 873.)
This case differs from Mejia in at least two ways . First, Tran had the opportunity to negotiate his disposition, and the evidence against him was strong. Second, t he record is devoid of
the type of evidence in Mejia and the other cases Tran cites

, such

as evidence from plea counsel, the plea transcript or other contemporaneous documents that could corroborate Tran’s claim s that he prioritized immigration consequences and that he would

6 The record is silent as to Tran’s attempt, if any, to contact his plea counsel. Although relief under section 1473.7

, subdivision (a)(1), does not require a declaration from plea counsel

, such a declaration may be a source of corroborating evidence about a defendant’s priorities when he pleaded guilty

.18

not have accepted the plea deal had he understood the immigration consequences

.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Tran’s motion to v acate his conviction is
affirme d

.

IBARRA , J

. *

W e concur :

SEGAL

, Acting P. J.

FEUER , J.

* Judge of the Santa Clara Coun ty Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.