P. v. Prasad

Filed 1/21/20 P. v. Prasad CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DHARMENDRA PRASAD,
Defendant and Appellant.
G057152
(Super. Ct. No. 95WF1183)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G.
Macias, Judge. Affirmed.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
On March 23, 1998, appellant Dharmendra Prasad pled guilty to charges of
unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) and grand theft (auto) (Pen. Code,
487(a)).1 His exposure in terms of penalty was 3 years, 8 months of incarceration in the
state prison, in addition to whatever he received for violating two earlier probationary
grants. Under the terms of his plea bargain, he was sentenced to two years in state prison.
Over the years, appellant has filed various motions seeking to overturn or challenge the
consequences of that plea, apparently due to its immigration consequences, but to no
avail.
His most recent attempt was the filing of motions pursuant to sections
1016.5 and 1473.7, filed in December of 2018. This appeal is from the denial of the
section 1016.5 motion.2 We deal with the section 1473.7 motion in case No. G057154.
We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal as well as the section
1473.7 case. Counsel filed a brief in each which set forth the procedural facts of the case
(the facts of the crimes themselves are irrelevant because the argument is solely directed
at the validity of appellant’s plea and no challenge pertaining to any facts of the crime is
mounted).
Counsel did not argue against her client but advised us there were no issues
to argue on his behalf. Appellant was invited to express his own objections to the
proceedings against him and did so with identical briefs. We have reviewed those briefs.
We are also required to review the record and see if we can find any issues that might
result in some kind of amelioration of appellant’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which appellant
would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 There is some confusion in the record because appellant seems to have filed two appeals from the
same judgment. That has been assumed to represent one appeal of the denial of each of the two statutory bases upon
which he filed for relief. For economy of effort, we have adopted that bifurcation and deal with each statute under
the different number assigned to it.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
We have examined the record and found no arguable issue as to this appeal.
Appellant’s complaint is that he did not understand his conviction could result in
deportation and a permanent bar to re-entry into this county. He says his attorney failed
to explain this to him and he did not understand the trial court’s warning of immigration
consequences.
But the record clearly reflects that warning. The minutes of his sentencing
include the entry, “ADV. CONSEQ. OF PLEA IF NOT A CITIZEN.” Appellant
nowhere challenges the accuracy of that entry but rather argues he did not understand it
and his attorney did not explain it to him. This argument has failed before and we see
nothing here to cause us to question its failure here. “We reject the argument because
section 1016.5 requires only that appellant be advised of possible deportation
consequences.” (People v. Araujo (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 759, 763.) The trial court,
faced with a record that shows such an advisement, correctly denied appellant’s section
1016.5 motion.
That ruling appears to us – as it did to appellate counsel – unassailable.
The section requires only that the court advise a defendant of immigration consequences.
That was done here. Challenges based on inadequate involvement of counsel or
appellant’s inability to understand that advisement – at least insofar as those things were
imperceptible by the trial court – must be challenged under another rubric. Those things
we perceive to be the basis of appellant’s other appeal, G057154, which we address
separately.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
The order is therefore affirmed.
BEDSWORTH, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’LEARY, P. J.
THOMPSON, J.

-- 4 of 4 --