Filed 4/16/14 P. v. Cisneros CA2/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CARLOS ARQUIMEDE CISNEROS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B250671 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. VA088049) 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Marcelita V. Haynes, Judge. Affirmed. 

Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 

____________________________________ 
2 

On April 13, 2005, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office 

charged appellant with corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5; count 1) 

and criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422; count 2). On April 13, 2005, appellant 

pled guilty to count 1. The official transcript of the plea hearing reflected that 

appellant was advised by the trial court as follows: “‘If you’re not a citizen, you 

have a right to consult with the consulate of the country you are a citizen of before 

entering your plea -- [I]f you’re not a citizen, your plea will have the consequences 

of deportation, exclusion from admission, denial of naturalization, amnesty, or 

reentry pursuant to the laws of the United States.’” Appellant was asked if he 

understood those rights, and he responded, “‘Yes.’” The trial court further advised 

appellant and his trial counsel that appellant had an immigration hold and that he 

was going to be deported. The court asked appellant if he understood he was going 

to be deported, and he answered, “‘Yes.’” The minute order likewise reflected that 

appellant was advised of the immigration consequences of his plea. 

At the sentencing hearing the same day, the trial court suspended imposition 

of sentence and placed appellant on five years probation on the condition that he 

serve 365 days in county jail. According to appellant, he was deported and 

subsequently reentered the United States in March 2012, whereupon he was 

detained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), part 

of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On March 28, 

2012, appellant admitted he was in violation of probation for failing to report to the 

probation department and for not attending domestic violence counseling 

programs. 

On June 27, 2013, appellant filed a motion to vacate his plea and/or reduce 

his conviction to a misdemeanor. He contended he was never advised that 

pleading to the corporal injury charge would have immigration consequences. He 

also contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. 
3 

Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356 (Padilla), as he never was informed of other 

available options that lacked immigration consequences. The following day, the 

trial court denied the motion, finding that appellant had been informed of the 

immigration consequences of his plea. 

On July 15, 2013, appellant prepared a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to 

vacate his plea. In his writ, he alleged he was being detained by DHS at the 

Adelanto Detention Center. Nothing indicates that this writ was filed in any court. 

On August 1, 2013, appellant filed another motion to vacate his plea and/or 

reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. The next day, the trial court found the 

motion duplicative of the prior motion, and again denied relief. The court’s 

August 2 order also noted that appellant’s sentence was final in 2005, and that the 

United States Supreme Court had held in Chaidez v. United States (2013) __ U.S. 

__ [133 S.Ct. 1103] (Chaidez), that Padilla was inapplicable to any case already 

final prior to the March 31, 2010 Padilla ruling. 

On August 1, 2013, appellant noticed an appeal from an order or judgment 

entered “March 25, 2005.” In an attached declaration, he alleged that he was 

currently detained at Adelanto Detention Center, “undergoing deportation 

proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security.” 

After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising 

no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On January 7, 2014, we advised appellant he 

had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument 

he wished this court to consider. On February 10, 2014, appellant filed a 

supplemental brief, consisting of a writ of error coram nobis (or coram vobis) to 

vacate his conviction and amend his plea. In his writ, appellant sought relief on the 

ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel 
4 

purportedly had failed to properly advise him of the actual immigration 

consequences of his plea. In an attached declaration, appellant stated that he is 

currently detained by ICE and housed in Adelanto, California. 

As an initial matter, appellant’s notice of appeal is defective, as it notices an 

appeal from a nonexistent order. To the extent appellant is appealing his 

conviction and sentence in 2005, it is untimely. However, we will exercise our 

discretion and construe the notice of appeal as being from the denial of appellant’s 

June 2013 motion to vacate his conviction and amend his plea. After review, we 

find no error. 

Appellant was advised in open court of the possible immigration 

consequences of his plea. He was further advised that he was subject to an 

immigration hold, and that he would be deported following his sentencing. After 

being advised, he pled guilty. On these facts, even if defense counsel failed to 

properly advise him, appellant was informed of the possible and actual 

immigration consequences of his plea. Moreover, in Chaidez, the United States 

Supreme Court held that for defendants whose convictions became final prior to 

March 31, 2010 (the date of the Padilla ruling), a lawyer’s failure to advise 

noncitizen clients of immigration consequences of a criminal conviction does not 

constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the 

federal Constitution. (Chaidez, supra, 113 S.Ct. at p. 1113.) As appellant’s 

conviction was final in 2005, he cannot assert a claim for ineffective assistance of 

counsel for counsel’s purported failure to inform him of the immigration 

consequences of his plea. In short, the trial court properly denied appellant’s 

motion, as he failed to show a legal basis to vacate his plea and/or reduce his 

conviction to a misdemeanor. 

As to appellant’s writ of error coram nobis, appellant has not shown he is 

entitled to relief on coram nobis. As appellant was advised of the possible and 
5 

actual immigration consequences of his plea, he cannot show any new facts that 

would bring him within the writ. In People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, the 

California Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument that ineffective 

assistance of counsel in failing to investigate the immigration consequences of a 

plea, or failing to negotiate a different plea, constituted grounds for relief on coram 

nobis. (Id. at p. 1104.) Accordingly, we deny appellant’s petition for writ of error 

coram nobis. 

Likewise, we conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief by way of a writ 

of habeas corpus. Appellant alleges that he is in federal custody. The California 

Supreme Court has held that a defendant in federal custody may not seek to vacate 

his state conviction by way of a state writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Villa

(2009) 45 Cal.4th 1063, 1075-1076.) Thus, appellant is not entitled to vacate his 

plea by way of a state writ of habeas corpus. 

This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has 

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. 
6 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

 

 MANELLA, J. 

We concur: 

EPSTEIN, P. J. 

EDMON, J.* 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.