People v. Perez, ___ Cal.App.4th, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2015 WL 332048 (4 Dist. Jan. 27, 2015) (trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea, pursuant to Penal Code 1018, for ineffective assistance of counsel, based on affirmative misadvisement about the immigration consequences of the conviction, where the evidence was in favor of granting the motion, but the trial court gave no reason for denying the motion); see In re Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230, 239, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 19 P.3d 1171.

The court stated:

Based on the record in this matter, including the superior court's failure to state any reason for denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we conclude the court abused its discretion. Had the court denied relief because the court found the declarants lacked credibility, for example, we would have accepted the ruling. (People v. Hamlin (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1465, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 402 [appellate court must defer to trial court on credibility of declarants]; Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 149, 160, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 [trial court entitled to believe one declarant over another].) Had the evidence been in dispute, we could have relied on the evidence supporting the court's decision to uphold the court's order denying defendant's motion even if the court summarily denied relief. But neither situation is present here. We remand the matter for further proceedings. This is not to say defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea, but when the evidence is one-sided and the court's ruling is contrary to that evidence, [footnote omitted] an order denying relief should alert the reviewing court as to the reason(s) for such a ruling. A denial without any statement of a reason provides no reasonable basis for the denial. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 156, 160, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 636.)
(Id. at ___.)
Cal Crim Def 20.43