People v. Durantes CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Durantes ignores the trial court's ruling that his motion was untimely and instead

argues the trial court should have set aside his guilty plea because he was not "fairly or

properly informed of the drastic immigration consequences of the guilty plea."

Specifically, he contends there is no solid proof that he was given the required

immigration advisement, there is no showing that the court specifically confirmed that

someone explained the immigration consequences to him, there is no evidence that he

comprehended the immigration advisements, and the advisement was misleading because

it did not fully explain that he would be unable to fight the deportation or ever obtain

lawful immigration status. We reject these arguments.

Section 1016.5, subdivision (a), requires courts to inform noncitizens pleading

guilty to certain felonies that a conviction "may have the consequences of deportation,

exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the

3 laws of the United States." This advisement shall be given on the record. (Ibid.) If the

court fails to advise the defendant of the possible immigration consequences, it…