People v. Arissol CA2/6 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Arissol CA2/6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
    certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
    THE PEOPLE,                                                     2d Crim. No. B302755
    (Super. Ct. No. F498681001)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                (San Luis Obispo County)
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER MERVIN
    ARISSOL,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Christopher Mervin Arissol appeals an October 30,
    2019 order denying his motion to vacate a 2014 felony conviction
    pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7.1 Appellant contends, and
    the Attorney General agrees, the superior court erred in denying
    the motion without appellant present. (§ 1473.7, subd. (d).) We
    reverse and remand with directions to appoint counsel for
    appellant if appropriate, and conduct a hearing on the merits of
    1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    the motion at which appellant and the People will be permitted to
    present evidence, testimony, and argument.
    Procedural History
    In 2014, appellant pled no contest to two counts of
    corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and
    false imprisonment with force (§ 236). The trial court suspended
    imposition of sentence and granted three years probation with
    365 days jail.
    On July 22, 2019, appellant filed a pro per motion to
    vacate the conviction alleging that he received ineffective
    assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to advise him of
    the immigration consequences of the plea before it was entered.
    The motion stated that appellant was being detained by the
    United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
    that he had been advised that he will be deported as a result of
    the conviction.
    The superior court denied the motion on October 30,
    2019 without appellant present.
    Personal Presence at Hearing
    Section 1473.7, subdivision (d) states: “All motions
    shall be entitled to a hearing. Upon the request of the moving
    party, the court may hold the hearing without the personal
    presence of the moving party provided that it finds good cause as
    to why the moving party cannot be present.” The record reflects
    that appellant did not waive his right to be present and the trial
    court did not make a good cause finding as to why appellant could
    not be present. “[T]he plain language of section 1473.7,
    subdivision (d), establishes that a moving party is entitled to
    a hearing” and “entitle[s appellant] to be personally present at
    the hearing.” (People v. Fryhaat (2019) 
    35 Cal.App.5th 969
    , 977
    2
    (Fryhaat).) The Attorney General agrees that counsel should be
    appointed for appellant if the trial court, on remand, determines
    the moving papers set forth adequate factual allegations stating a
    prima facie case for entitlement to relief. (Id. at pp. 983-984.)
    Disposition
    The order denying the section 1437.7 motion to
    vacate the conviction is reversed and the matter is remanded
    with directions to: evaluate appellant’s motion and request for
    appointment of counsel consistent with the opinion, appoint
    counsel for appellant if appropriate, and conduct a hearing on the
    merits of the motion at which appellant and the People will be
    permitted to present evidence, testimony, and argument.
    (Fryhaat, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 984; People v. Rodriguez
    (2019) 
    38 Cal.App.5th 971
    , 984.)
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    YEGAN, J.
    We concur:
    GILBERT, P. J.
    PERREN, J.
    3
    Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge
    Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
    ______________________________
    Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the
    Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters,
    Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising
    Deputy Attorney General, Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney
    General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B302755

Filed Date: 1/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/20/2021