People v. Ramirez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR95616, CR95617
- Trial judge
- Frederic C. Link
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Gilbert Nares, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court denied Ramirez's motion to vacate his 1988 guilty pleas, rejecting his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was not advised of the adverse immigration consequences. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to *Wende* and *Anders*, finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to vacate judgment of conviction“After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the trial court's ruling on the merits because the denial of the certificate of probable cause limited the scope of appeal to sentencing questions or post-plea matters, excluding the validity of the guilty pleas. Consequently, the court affirmed the order without evaluating the trial court's application of the law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel or immigration advice. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and invites the court to independently review the record for error if no argument is presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the *Wende*/*Anders* framework to conduct an independent review of the record. However, it relies on a prior order limiting the scope of appeal due to the denial of a certificate of probable cause, which effectively bypasses any substantive legal analysis of the ineffective assistance claim.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionIn 2013 the trial court denied Antonio Ramirez Ramirez's motion to vacate his 1988 marijuana-sale convictions, which claimed his guilty pleas were invalid because counsel and the court failed to advise him of immigration consequences, and it denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to vacate the judgment of conviction / withdraw guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of immigration consequences“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel concerning the validity of the pleas, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted only an independent Wende/Anders review and did not articulate a standard of review or analyze the merits. Because the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, the court correctly treated challenges to the validity of the pleas as outside the scope of the appeal, leaving nothing arguable to review. The result is defensible on the record described, but the opinion gives no substantive reasoning to evaluate. |
Denial of request for certificate of probable cause, limiting the appeal to post-plea matters“"Appellant's request[] for [a] certificate of probable cause [was] denied, so the issues on appeal are limited to sentencing questions or other matters after the plea . . . ."” | unclear | correct | agree with court Under Penal Code section 1237.5, an appeal attacking the validity of a guilty plea requires a certificate of probable cause; without one, the appellate court properly confined its review to post-plea matters. The opinion applies this rule by reference to its own prior order rather than citing authority, but the rule itself is well settled. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court reviews the record itself.
- missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief such as a motion to vacate a conviction, because there is no constitutional right to counsel in that setting; the court may dismiss such an appeal if the defendant files no supplemental brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches a defensible result: without a certificate of probable cause, the plea-validity claim was not cognizable, and independent review disclosed nothing arguable. It skips any discussion of whether Wende review was even required on appeal from a postjudgment motion to vacate (People v. Serrano) and cites no authority for the section 1237.5 limitation, though neither gap affects the outcome.
Opinion
Filed 6/27/14 P. v. Ramirez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065108
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. CR95616, CR95617)
ANTONIO RAMIREZ RAMIREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederic C.
Link, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
In 1988, Antonio Ramirez Ramirez pled guilty to two counts of selling marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360).1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Ramirez on probation, subject to the condition that he serve 270 days in jail.
In 2013, Ramirez filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. In his motion, Ramirez contended that his guilty pleas were invalid because the trial court and defense counsel had failed to properly advise him of the adverse immigration consequences of his pleas. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 1988, in case number CR95616, the People charged Ramirez with sale of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)) (count 1), and giving false information to a police officer 1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. 2 (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) (count 2). Also in June 1988, in case number CR95617, the People charged Ramirez with sale of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)) (count 1).
That same month, the trial court held a joint guilty plea hearing with respect to both cases. In CR95616, Ramirez pled guilty to sale of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a))
(count 1) in exchange for dismissal of count two and a promise that he would serve local time concurrent with any sentence imposed in case number CR95617. In CR95617, Ramirez pled guilty to sale of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)) (count 1) in exchange for local time and a concurrent sentence with respect to CR95616. At a joint sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence in both cases, and placed Ramirez on probation, conditioned upon him serving an aggregate term of 270 days in county jail.
On August 7, 2013, Ramirez filed a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction in which he sought to withdraw his pleas in both cases. Ramirez claimed he had been denied his right to effective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty because he had not been advised that the guilty pleas would result in his removal from the United States.
Ramirez supported his motion with a copy of the transcript from his plea hearing, a copy of the plea agreements, his own declaration, copies of documents of immigration 3 proceedings ordering his removal from the United States, and two trial court orders granting Ramirez's petition for dismissal of his convictions in CR95616 and 95617.2 The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion and the trial court held a hearing on the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court orally denied the motion.
In December 2013, Ramirez appealed from the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. With his notice of appeal, Ramirez filed a request for a certificate of probable cause. In his request, Ramirez explained that he wanted to challenge the constitutional validity of his guilty pleas on appeal. The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
In January 2014, this court issued an order that states in relevant part, "Appellant's request[] for [a] certificate of probable cause [was] denied, so the issues on appeal are limited to sentencing questions or other matters after the plea . . . ."
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified the following as possible, but not arguable, issues:
2 At the hearing on Ramirez's motion to vacate the judgment, counsel explained that the prior orders granting Ramirez's petition for dismissal of the conviction were not sufficient to prevent his removal from the United States. 4 "Whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the time he entered the pleas because he was not advised the pleas would result in his deportation and exclusion from the United States"
After this court received counsel's brief, we gave Ramirez an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Ramirez has not filed a brief.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel concerning the validity of the pleas,3 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Ramirez has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
3 As we noted in our January 2014 order, in light of the denial of Ramirez's request for a certificate of probable cause, the "issues on appeal are limited to sentencing questions or other matters occurring after the plea . . . ." 5
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12