Filed 8/25/21 P. v. Romero CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE THE PEOPLE, B307941 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA037628) v. OSCAR RENE ROMERO, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Vejar Law Firm and Erika Vejar for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Oscar Rene Romero appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate his 1998 conviction for lewd acts upon a child. Over 20 years after pleading nolo contendere to that offense, Romero now claims that his conviction was legally invalid because he failed to understand the potential adverse immigration consequences of his plea. Romero contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel and entered his plea under duress, both constituting prejudicial errors warranting relief under section 1473.7 of the Penal Code.1 However, the record before us strongly supports the inference that Romero’s primary reason for accepting the plea bargain was the seriousness of the charges he faced if convicted of all counts, especially in light of the vastly reduced exposure he received through the plea agreement. Under our independent judgment standard, Romero has provided insufficient evidence for us to conclude that he likely would have rejected the plea offer had he correctly understood either its actual or potential immigration consequences. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his section 1473.7 motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. 1998 Felony Conviction Romero came to the United States from Guatemala in 1982, becoming a lawful permanent resident in 1990. On June 16, 1997, he was arrested and charged with eight counts of lewd acts upon two children, Brenda L. and Bernice L., 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 both of whom were under 14 years of age, in violation of section 288, subdivision (a). He spent the next 10 months in custody awaiting trial. On April 24, 1998, Romero pled nolo contendere to one count of lewd acts upon a child, and the remaining charges were dismissed. According to the plea transcript, Romero was specifically informed that his conviction “could result in deportation, denial of naturalization or denial of re-entry.” During the plea proceeding, there was considerable back- and-forth between Romero, his counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court over a variety of issues, including the indicated sentence, the need to register as a sex offender, the potential unavailability of witnesses, the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals