P. v. Jimenez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062580 · 2013-06-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR61972
Trial judge: Robert F. O'Neill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Gilbert Nares, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:53Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Jimenez's motion to withdraw his 1983 guilty plea, primarily ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because his probation had expired. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that while the trial court erred on the jurisdictional issue, the motion failed on the merits because the record established Jimenez was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea based on lack of jurisdiction due to expiration of probation “Jimenez is correct in arguing that the court erroneously ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because Jimenez was no longer on probation.”	de novo	error	agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that the trial court's jurisdictional ruling was legally erroneous, as expiration of probation does not terminate subject matter jurisdiction over a plea withdrawal motion. This aligns with the binding authority cited, In re Griffin, which explicitly states that jurisdiction continues after the probationary term ends.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea based on failure to establish lack of proper advice regarding immigration consequences “The record thus establishes that Jimenez was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He therefore cannot prevail on a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the three-part test from People v. Totari and found that the record, including the signed change of plea form and the transcript of the hearing, supported the conclusion that Jimenez was advised of the consequences. The court properly noted that Jimenez's testimony about his language ability was contradicted by his contemporaneous statements and actions during the plea hearing.

Authorities

relied: In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343 — Expiration of the probationary period does not terminate the court's jurisdiction of the subject matter.
relied: People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876 — To prevail on a motion to vacate under Penal Code section 1016.5, a defendant must establish lack of proper advice, a more than remote possibility of adverse immigration consequences, and prejudice.
relied: People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139 — An appellate court must affirm a trial court's ruling if it was correct on any basis, allowing for consideration of alternative grounds for the order.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the trial court's legal error regarding jurisdiction but properly affirms the judgment on alternative, correct grounds supported by the record. The court accurately applies the controlling standard from People v. Totari to the specific facts of the plea hearing.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

In 2012 the San Diego Superior Court denied Ruben Jimenez's Penal Code section 1016.5 motion to withdraw his 1983 guilty plea to heroin possession, stating that it lacked jurisdiction because Jimenez was no longer on probation, while also discussing his lack of diligence and the fact that he was present when codefendants were given an interpreter. The Court of Appeal held the jurisdictional ruling was wrong under In re Griffin but affirmed on the alternative ground that the plea form and reporter's transcript establish Jimenez was advised of the immigration consequences, so he could not satisfy the first Totari element.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to withdraw the plea because the probationary period had expired “Jimenez is correct in arguing that the court erroneously ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because Jimenez was no longer on probation.”	unclear	harmless error (law misapplied)	agree with court The opinion did not state a standard of review, but jurisdiction is a legal question. In re Griffin squarely holds that expiration of probation does not end the court's fundamental jurisdiction, and section 1016.5 motions are routinely heard decades after judgment, so the trial court's stated ground was wrong. The appellate court properly treated the error as non-dispositive because a correct ruling must be affirmed on any supported basis.
Denial of the section 1016.5 motion to withdraw the guilty plea (affirmed on the alternative basis that the record shows Jimenez was properly advised of immigration consequences) “The record thus establishes that Jimenez was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He therefore cannot prevail on a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The signed and initialed plea form contained the statutory advisement and the plea judge also recited the immigration consequences orally, so the advisement was given; the only dispute was whether Jimenez understood English. His 1983 sworn statements that he read and understood English and the form, his responsive answers, his 2012 declaration's silence on any language barrier, and the trial court's observation that he was present when codefendants were offered an interpreter all support rejecting his later testimony. The result is defensible, though the appellate court resolved what is partly a credibility question without identifying the applicable abuse-of-discretion standard or an express trial finding on English comprehension.
Trial court's discussion of Jimenez's lack of diligence and timeliness in bringing the motion “Although the court did discuss diligence and timeliness, the record does not support the conclusion that the court denied the motion on that basis.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court declined to treat untimeliness as the trial court's ground of decision and assumed diligence arguendo, resolving the appeal on the advisement element instead. That approach is reasonable given the trial court's ambiguous 'bottom line' framing, and nothing in the opinion suggests the court mischaracterized the record.

Authorities

relied: In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343 — Expiration of the probationary period does not terminate the trial court's fundamental jurisdiction over the subject matter; the probation statutes contemplate determinations after the probationary term ends.
relied: People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139 — A reviewing court must affirm if the trial court's ruling was correct on any basis and may therefore consider alternative grounds for the order.
relied: People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876 — To prevail on a section 1016.5 motion the defendant must show (1) he was not properly advised of immigration consequences, (2) more than a remote possibility of adverse immigration consequences exists, and (3) prejudice from the nonadvisement.
missed: People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183 — A trial court's ruling on a section 1016.5 motion to vacate is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the opinion stated no standard of review for the denial it affirmed.
missed: People v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 519 — A section 1016.5 advisement contained in a written change of plea form that the defendant signs and acknowledges satisfies the statute; this would have directly supported the court's alternative ground.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly identified the jurisdictional error under In re Griffin and reached a defensible result by affirming on the advisement element, which the plea form and transcript strongly support. It did not, however, state the standard of review for a section 1016.5 denial (Zamudio), did not cite authority that a written plea-form advisement suffices (Ramirez), and resolved the English-comprehension dispute itself rather than tying it to an express trial court finding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Jimenez 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, D062580

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR61972)

RUBEN WILFIDE JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F.

O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick Morgan Ford for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin and Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1983, Ruben Wilfide Jimenez entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and was placed on probation for a period of three years. In 2012, Jimenez filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court denied the motion. Jimenez appeals, contending that the court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

At the February 1983 change of plea hearing, at which Jimenez and five codefendants entered guilty pleas, Jimenez was represented by attorney Ronald J.

Brahms. Jimenez initialed and signed a change of plea form stating that he had read and understood each of the enumerated items on the form, that Brahms had explained each item and that he had discussed each item with Brahms. One of the items on the change of plea form described the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea. That item states: "If [the defendant] is not a citizen, [a guilty plea] may result in deportation, exclusion from admission [illegible] United States, or denial of naturalization as an American citizen."

Two of Jimenez's seven codefendants were assisted by a Spanish language interpreter during the hearing. Jimenez testified that he could read, write and understand English. The judge who presided at the hearing recited the immigration consequences of the plea and obtained Jimenez's personal waiver of his constitutional rights. Jimenez testified that he had discussed the case with Brahms, that he was satisfied with Brahms's representation and that he had had "plenty time" to talk with Brahms about the case. The following exchange ensued between the judge and Jimenez.

"Q I have before me a change of plea form which, after question 15, is signed Ruben [Jimenez]. Is that your signature?

2 "A Yeah, that's my signature.

"Q When you signed this form, was it filled out like it is now?

"A Yes, I did.

"Q Before signing this form, did you read it and go over it and did you understand it?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Is everything on this form true and correct?

"A It's true.

"Q Do you have any questions about anything on this form, what's happening here now, or anything about this case?

"A No questions."

Attorney Brahms told the judge that he had had sufficient time to discuss the case with Jimenez, and said that he had fully discussed with Jimenez the possible consequences of a guilty plea. After finding that Jimenez understood the consequences, the judge accepted the plea.

In March 1983, the judge placed Jimenez on probation for a period of three years.

In March 1986, another judge revoked, reinstated and extended Jimenez's probation to March 1988.

In 2010, Jimenez applied for legal residency in the United States. His application was denied and removal proceedings were instituted. In 2011, Jimenez retained an immigration attorney. The immigration attorney filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, challenging an order for Jimenez's removal from the United States.

3 In May 2012, Jimenez filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he had not been advised of the immigration consequences of the plea (Pen. Code, § 1016.5). In a declaration accompanying the motion, Jimenez stated: "I found out that this nearly 30[-]year[-]old conviction is going to deport me. In 2011, I found this out after I applied for Legal Permanent Residence status under my US citizen daughter. I had no idea about this. The next thing I knew, I was placed in deportation proceedings.

[¶] [N]o one explained this to me then, at the time of this conviction or when I had my probation violation in 1986." Jimenez did not state in his declaration that he had been unable to understand English at the time he entered his plea, nor did he state that he had applied for legal residency prior to 2011.

At the August 2012 hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Jimenez testified that at the time he entered the plea, he could not read English, he could not speak English, except for "yes, no, little things," and "[i]f they talk real fast, I can't get it." He also testified that he had applied for permanent residence status in 2001 or 2002 and had been told to wait 10 years "[b]ecause it was not a probation" or "because the case I had"

or because of the guilty plea. He had been told to "wait until [10] years and be good and be, you know, a good citizen." He did not know why the waiting period was 10 years.

Jimenez testified that after he submitted his second residency application in 2010, he learned that his criminal conviction would result in deportation.

Attorney Brahms testified that he did not remember representing Jimenez.

Brahms said that his custom and habit in 1983 was to explain a change of plea form to a 4 client; read the form to the client, or have the client read it; have the client initial and sign the form; and to use an interpreter when there was a language barrier.

In its ruling on the plea withdrawal motion, the court noted that Jimenez was present at the change of plea hearing when the judge said to two of Jimenez's codefendants, "[Y]ou may understand some English. I'm sure you do. But we either have to conduct the proceedings in English [or] Spanish and we can't do both. Since you apparently are more fluent in Spanish, we will ask you to use the Spanish language." The court noted that there had been an interpreter for two of the defendants during the hearing and observed that "[t]here is no evidence [Jimenez] did not hear the exchange between the interpreter and the other defendants who were afforded the use of an interpreter." The court also discussed Jimenez's lack of diligence in bringing the motion, and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the motion, which the court characterized as "the bottom line" issue. The court stated that it believed it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion to withdraw the guilty plea because Jimenez was no longer on probation. The court concluded by saying, "the motion is denied for the reasons given by the court."

DISCUSSION

Jimenez is correct in arguing that the court erroneously ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because Jimenez was no longer on probation. (In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343, 347 ["Neither the probation statutes nor the cases applying them support a holding that expiration of the probationary period terminates the court's jurisdiction of the subject matter. The statutes themselves contemplate that such fundamental jurisdiction continues, for they provide for the court's determination of 5 certain matters after the end of the probationary term."].) However, "[b]ecause we must affirm if the court's ruling was correct on any basis, we consider alternative bases for the order."1 (People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1148, fn. 4.)

"To prevail on a motion to vacate under [Penal Code] section 1016.5, a defendant must establish that (1) he or she was not properly advised of the immigration consequences as provided by the statute; (2) there exists, at the time of the motion, more than a remote possibility that the conviction will have one or more of the specified adverse immigration consequences; and (3) he or she was prejudiced by the nonadvisement." (People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 884.) Assuming, arguendo, that Jimenez was diligent in bringing the motion, the change of plea form and the reporter's transcript of the change of plea hearing establish that Jimenez was advised that he might be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea. Jimenez represented to the judge that he understood English. Jimenez's responses were generally appropriate, demonstrating that he understood the judge's questions. Jimenez checked the applicable boxes on the change of plea form and said that he had discussed the matter thoroughly with attorney Brahms.

The record thus establishes that Jimenez was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He therefore cannot prevail on a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

1 Respondent argues that the court denied the motion on the basis that it was untimely. Although the court did discuss diligence and timeliness, the record does not support the conclusion that the court denied the motion on that basis. 6 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Mbaabu No. E055810 · 2013-02-14
People v. Totari S091459 · 2002-08-08
In re Griffin Crim. No. 10897 · 1967-09-21