Filed 3/4/15 P. v. Campos Flores 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

ANTONIO CAMPOS FLORES, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B257540 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. MA063161) 

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

Christopher G. Estes, Judge. Affirmed. 

 John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

________________________ 
2

Antonio Campos Flores was charged in a criminal complaint with one count each 

of possession for sale of methamphetamine and driving without a valid license. He 

entered a negotiated plea of no contest, both orally and in writing, to one count of 

possession for sale of methamphetamine. In accordance with the plea agreement, 

imposition of sentence was suspended and Campos Flores was placed on three years of 

formal probation, on condition he serve 24 days in county jail, with credit for time 

served. The remaining count was dismissed. 

At the plea hearing, Campos Flores was represented by counsel and had the 

assistance of a Spanish language interpreter. Campos Flores was provided with a plea 

form which was read to him and translated into Spanish. He confirmed that he 

understood and had initialed and signed that form. He was thus advised of and waived 

his constitutional rights and was advised of and acknowledged orally and in writing he 

understood the consequences of his plea. Among the consequences Campos Flores 

initialed on the plea form, indicating he understood them and had discussed them with his 

attorney was “if I am not a citizen of the United States, the conviction for the offense 

charged will have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission or denial of 

naturalization.” Defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The trial court 

found Campos Flores had knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his 

constitutional rights and entered his no contest plea. 

Campos Flores timely filed a notice of appeal, in which he checked the preprinted 

boxes indicating his appeal “was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after 

the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea,” “is after a contested violation of 

probation” and “other” without specifying other grounds for appeal. Attached to his 

notice of appeal was a lengthy “Declaration” in which Campos Flores claimed defense 

counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. In his request 

for a certificate of probable cause, Campos Flores asserted his counsel rendered 

constitutionally ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and to inform him of the 

adverse immigration consequences of his plea. 
3

We appointed counsel to represent Campos Flores on appeal. After an 

examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

On November 14, 2014 and January 20, 2015, we advised Campos Flores by letter he had 

30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. 

Each time the letter was returned, with the notation: “Return To Sender, Not Deliverable 

As Addressed, Unable to Forward” with a notation from the jail facility Campos Flores 

was no longer in custody. 

We have examined the record and are satisfied Campos Flores’s attorney has fully 

complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. The record 

establishes Campos Flores was adequately advised of the immigration consequences 

of his plea when he signed the plea form. (See People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) 

(2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 207.) That the admonitions were communicated in writing rather 

than repeated orally is of no legal significance because the trial court confirmed Campos 

Flores had read and understood the plea form and had signed it willingly. (See Arlena M. 

v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 566, 570.) Additionally, the record fails to 

demonstrate defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at any time during the 

proceedings. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 

80 L.Ed.2d 674].) 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. 

 ZELON, J. 

We concur: 

 PERLUSS, P. J. IWASAKI, J.*

 

*

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

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.