People v. Badillo CA2/2

Filed 12/22/14 P. v. Badillo CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B252576

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA190029) v.

FILOMENO CARLOS BADILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael D. Abzug, Judge. Affirmed.

The Agopoglu Law Corp. and Berc Agopoglu, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Filomeno Carlos Badillo (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he sought to have his 1999 judgment vacated on two grounds: defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misinforming him of the immigration consequences of his plea and he would not have entered a plea agreement if he had known of newly discovered exculpatory evidence. Finding no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition, we affirm the order. BACKGROUND On September 10, 1999, defendant was charged by felony information in count 1 with the sale, transport or offer to sell cocaine, in violation of former Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), and in count 2 with possession of cocaine for sale in violation of former Health and Safety Code section 11351. Under a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 2 in return for the dismissal of count 1. Defendant was placed on formal probation for three years on terms and conditions that included 30 days in county jail. On August 9, 2012, defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1016.5, alleging that neither his attorney, the prosecutor, nor the trial judge warned him of the immigration consequences of his plea.1 Two weeks later, defendant filed an “Amendment to Motion to Vacate Judgment” in which defendant alleged that it was his attorney who had failed to advise him of possible defenses and represented there would be no immigration consequences. After two stipulated continuances, the matter was called for hearing on October 18, 2012, and then taken off calendar. On December 13, 2012, defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and motion to vacate the judgment, in which defendant alleged that he asked his attorney about immigration consequences and was told that nothing would happen to him.