Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Arissol CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MERVIN 

ARISSOL, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B302755

(Super. Ct. No. F498681001)

(San Luis Obispo County)

Christopher Mervin Arissol appeals an October 30, 

2019 order denying his motion to vacate a 2014 felony conviction 

pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7.1 Appellant contends, and 

the Attorney General agrees, the superior court erred in denying 

the motion without appellant present. (§ 1473.7, subd. (d).) We 

reverse and remand with directions to appoint counsel for 

appellant if appropriate, and conduct a hearing on the merits of 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

the motion at which appellant and the People will be permitted to 

present evidence, testimony, and argument. 

Procedural History

In 2014, appellant pled no contest to two counts of 

corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and 

false imprisonment with force (§ 236). The trial court suspended 

imposition of sentence and granted three years probation with 

365 days jail. 

On July 22, 2019, appellant filed a pro per motion to 

vacate the conviction alleging that he received ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to advise him of 

the immigration consequences of the plea before it was entered. 

The motion stated that appellant was being detained by the 

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and 

that he had been advised that he will be deported as a result of 

the conviction. 

The superior court denied the motion on October 30, 

2019 without appellant present.

Personal Presence at Hearing

Section 1473.7, subdivision (d) states: “All motions 

shall be entitled to a hearing. Upon the request of the moving 

party, the court may hold the hearing without the personal 

presence of the moving party provided that it finds good cause as 

to why the moving party cannot be present.” The record reflects 

that appellant did not waive his right to be present and the trial 

court did not make a good cause finding as to why appellant could 

not be present. “[T]he plain language of section 1473.7, 

subdivision (d), establishes that a moving party is entitled to 

a hearing” and “entitle[s appellant] to be personally present at 

the hearing.” (People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969, 977
3

(Fryhaat).) The Attorney General agrees that counsel should be 

appointed for appellant if the trial court, on remand, determines 

the moving papers set forth adequate factual allegations stating a 

prima facie case for entitlement to relief. (Id. at pp. 983-984.) 

Disposition

The order denying the section 1437.7 motion to 

vacate the conviction is reversed and the matter is remanded 

with directions to: evaluate appellant’s motion and request for 

appointment of counsel consistent with the opinion, appoint 

counsel for appellant if appropriate, and conduct a hearing on the 

merits of the motion at which appellant and the People will be 

permitted to present evidence, testimony, and argument. 

(Fryhaat, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 984; People v. Rodriguez 

(2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 971, 984.) 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. 

PERREN, J.
Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, 

Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising 

Deputy Attorney General, Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.