of the charging document.” Id. California Health and Safety Code § 11379 is titled, “Transportation, sale, furnishing, etc.; punishment,” and the abstract of judgment stated the crime as “Transport/sell cont. sub.” Id. at 906. We thus held that the abstract of judgment was “not sufficient to establish ‘unequivocally’ that Navidad-Marcos entered a guilty plea to a different charge from the one contained in the Information.” Id. at 909. In contrast, the statute of conviction under which Ramirez-Villalpando pled guilty is entitled “Grand theft defined.” Cal. Pen.Code § 487(a). The description of the crime in the abstract of judgment specified “personal property” from a list of potential crimes under § 487(a): “money, labor, or real or personal property.” The crime -11 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 878
holding that in conjunction an information with a narrow charge and an abstract of judgment indicating that a defendant pled guilty to that charge prove the precise elements of the offense to which the defendant pled guilty holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime holding that the abstract of judgment coupled with the information furnished sufficient proof that the defendant was convicted of all the elements of the generic crime of burglary holding that the abstract of judgment may not sufficiently establish that the defendant pled guilty to a specific crime when the only other document provided was the charge which simply contained the generic broad statutory language holding circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea where defendant was not indicted for the charge to which he pled guilty but signed a sentencing sheet which established defendant was notified of the charge to which he pled guilty