People v. Gonzalez CA2/8

── People v. Gonzalez CA2/8 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT THE PEOPLE, B341277 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA108927 v. JOSE ALFREDO GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alison S. Matsumoto, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Sabrina R. Damast, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Nicholas J. Webster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________  Jose Alfredo Gonzalez appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate a conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion. Undesignated citations are to the Penal Code. In 1995, pursuant to a plea agreement, Gonzalez pleaded guilty to a violation of section 288, committing a lewd act on a minor under 14 years old (his niece). The record is unclear if the conviction was under subdivision (a) or subdivision (b), which involves force. For the purposes of this appeal, the distinction is immaterial. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the trial court sentenced Gonzalez to 298 days in prison and five years of probation. Beyond these basic facts, the record of the plea is scant. There is no transcript from the court’s taking of the plea or sentencing. The current prosecutor was unable to locate either the previous district attorney or his file. The previous defense counsel is deceased. Judge Connor, the previous judge, provided a declaration of her general practices but does not recall Gonzalez’s case in particular. Contemporaneously, Judge Connor marked a box on the plea form stating: “Defendant advised of possible [e]ffects of plea on any alien/citizenship/probation/parole status.” She later declared that her practice was to ensure the prosecutor “fully advised the defendant of the potential immigration consequences, including deportation, denial of entry, and denial of naturalization.” She would not check the above-mentioned box until she was satisfied the defendant had received the full immigration advisement. 2  In December 2023, Gonzalez filed a motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7. The prosecutor opposed the motion. The trial court heard testimony from Gonzalez, one of his immigration attorneys, and his wife. After hearing argument, the trial court denied the motion, finding Gonzalez had not established prejudicial error. Because the record shows Gonzalez has established he suffered from a prejudicial error, we reverse and remand to the trial court. Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. (§ 1473.7, subd. (a)(1).) To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable