Full Opinion

Filed 11/5/26 P. v. Reyna CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F090284 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SC053947B) v. ERIBERTO REYNA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Andrew Kendall, Judge. Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Harrell, J. INTRODUCTION In 1993, Eriberto Reyna (appellant) pled guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)), 1 and was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. In 2024, after his release from prison, appellant filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), alleging his conviction is invalid because he did not meaningfully understand the adverse immigration consequences of his plea. The trial court denied the motion, concluding appellant was ineligible for relief under that section because he was still on parole. On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking this court to review the record and determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Appellant was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental letter or brief but failed to do so in the time allotted. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm BACKGROUND In 1993, the Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging appellant with premeditated and deliberate first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)), conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 182, subd. (a)(1)), and conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 182, subd. (a)(1)). As to each offense, the People alleged enhancements for the personal use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, former subd. (b)) and for acting for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to count 1, and the remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed. The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in state prison. In April 2024, appellant filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court granted his request for appointed counsel. In March 2025, defense counsel filed a supplemental motion explaining that appellant was released on parole on August 2, 2023, and was subsequently taken into immigration custody the following month. Counsel represented that appellant remained in immigration custody pending deportation proceedings. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on August 8, 2025. Appellant was not present. Defense counsel represented that appellant had elected not to contest removal proceedings and had been deported. Despite appellant’s absence, counsel elected to proceed with the hearing. At the hearing, the People argued, inter alia, that appellant was ineligible for relief under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), because he remained on parole. They contended that parole constitutes constructive custody and therefore appellant did not satisfy the statute’s requirement that the moving party be “[a] person who is no longer in criminal custody.” (§ 1473.7, subd. (a); see People v. DeJesus (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1132 [“people on parole are not eligible for relief pursuant to section 1473.7”].) The trial court reviewed subpoenaed parole records and confirmed that appellant was released on parole in August 2023 for a period of three years. Although defense counsel did not expressly concede the issue, he acknowledged that the People’s position was “legally compelling” and supported by caselaw. Accordingly, the trial court denied the motion, concluding that appellant remained on parole and was therefore in constructive criminal custody and ineligible for relief. 2 2 The trial court also observed that, given appellant's potential exposure following a conviction at trial and the sentencing and parole benefits of the plea agreement, appellant 3. DISCUSSION As noted above, appellant’s counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no error and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have conducted an independent review of the record. We find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. might have accepted the agreement even if he understood its adverse immigration consequences. However, the record does not indicate that the court relied on this observation in denying the motion. 4.