People v. Trejo CA2/4

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Padilla because his former counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Appellant cannot prevail on his claim that he is entitled to relief because Padilla does not apply retroactively to his conviction, which became final in 1998. (Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at p. 1105.)

1 The statute provides, in part: “In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty.” (Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (a)(1).) 2 Appellant’s relief under…