Filed 3/4/15 P. v. Campos Flores CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Su perior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher G. Estes, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under ap pointment 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 w ith 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 Cam pos 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 wa s 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 initia led and signed that form. He wa s thus advised of and waived his constitutional rights and wa s advised of and ac knowledged orally and in writing he understood the consequences of his plea. Among the consequences Campos Flores initialed on the plea form, indicating he underst ood them and had disc ussed them with his attorney was “if I am not a citizen of the United States, the conviction for the offense charged will have the c onsequences of deporta tion, 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 a nd intelligently waived his constitutional rights and ente red his no contest plea. Campos Flores timely filed a notice of appe al, in which he checked the preprinted boxes indicating his appeal “was based on th e sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of th e plea,” “is after a contested violation of probation” and “other” without specifying ot her 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 immigrati on consequences of his plea. In his request for a certificate of probable cause, Campos Flores asserted his counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in faili ng to investigate and to inform him of the adverse immigration conseque nces of his plea.3 We appointed counsel to represent Ca mpos Flores on appeal. After an

examination of the record coun sel 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 su bmit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.

Each time the letter was returned , with the notation: “Retur n 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 sati sfied Campos Flores’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel a nd no arguable issue exists. The record establishes Campos Flores was adequately advised of the immigr ation 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 signifi cance because the trial court confirmed Campos

Flores had read and unders tood the plea form and ha d signed it willingly. (See Arlena M. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 566, 570.) Additionally, the r ecord fails to demonstrate defense counsel provided ineffe ctive 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 th e California Constitution.