People v. Oliveira CA4/1

Filed 5/16/25 P. v. Oliveira CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083662

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE309857)

DOMINGOS JOSE OLIVEIRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sherry M. Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Adrian R. Contreras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Domingos Jose Oliveira appeals the order denying his motion to vacate convictions he suffered in 2011. The basis of the motion was that he would

not now be facing deportation had trial counsel properly advised him about the immigration consequences of conviction and negotiated a plea bargain without those consequences. At the hearing on the motion, the public defender who had been appointed to represent Oliveira stated he could not do so. The trial court denied Oliveira’s request for a continuance and appointment of new counsel and denied the motion on the merits. Oliveira attacks both the denial of the request and the denial of the motion. The People concede the denial of the request for appointment of new counsel was prejudicial error and a new hearing is required. We accept the concession, reverse the challenged order, and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts and Proceedings Leading to Convictions Oliveira disapproved of the relationship his daughter (Daughter) had with a Black man (S.K.) when she was 18 and 19 years old. In June 2010, Oliveira made Daughter sign a “contract” that she would cease all contact with S.K. and that if she breached the contract she and S.K would be killed without notice. Daughter ceased contact with S.K. after she signed the “contract” and resumed contact in December 2010. Oliveira then began sending Daughter and S.K. text messages and e-mails accusing Daughter of violating the “contract” and threatening S.K.’s life. In March 2010, flyers were posted at the college Daughter and S.K. attended that contained a photograph of S.K. and an offer of a $3,000 reward for his body, “dead or alive.” A copy of the flyer was later found on Oliveira’s computer. A jury found Oliveira guilty of solicitation of murder (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (b)) and making criminal threats (id., § 422). It found true the enhancement allegation that the criminal threats charge was a hate crime.