Filed 8/27/21 P. v. Chweya CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE THE PEOPLE, B301780 Los Angeles County Super. Plaintiff and Respondent, Ct. No. VA093880) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING RODNEY D. CHWEYA, PETITION FOR REHEARING Defendant and Appellant. [There is no change in judgment] BY THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 30, 2021, is modified as follows: 1. On pages 10-11 beginning at the bottom of page 10, delete the last paragraph that reads: Appellant argues that he “could have [] pled guilty to a factually related immigration-safe serious felony, such as first degree burglary.” But he does not offer any evidence that the prosecutor would have considered, or the trial court would have accepted, a different plea. Given appellant’s criminal record, his taped confession, and the seriousness of the offense, the only reasonable inference is that neither the prosecutor nor the court would have agreed to such a disposition. Appellant’s claim that his counsel could have negotiated a different plea thus reduces to speculation without record support. (People v. Castillo (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1103, 1115 [“Appellant’s speculation that another plea could have been negotiated ‘ “is not evidence, less still substantial evidence.” ’ ”].) And replace with: Appellant argues that he “could have [] pled guilty to a factually related immigration-safe serious felony, such as first-degree burglary.” The record shows appellant could not “expect or hope a different bargain” was possible in light of the seriousness of the offense, his criminal record and his confession to police that he committed the charged sexual act with a minor. (Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 529.) 2. On page 12, delete the heading that reads: The Trial Court Did Not Err in Excluding Appellant’s Declarations And replace it with: Any Error in Excluding Appellant’s Declarations Was Harmless There is no change in judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. ____________________________________________________________ RUBIN, P. J. MOOR, J. KIM. J. 2 Filed 7/30/21 P. v. Chweya CA2/5 (unmodified opinion) 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 FIVE THE PEOPLE, B301780 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA093880) v. RODNEY D. CHWEYA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra A. Cole-Hall, Judge. Affirmed. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals