P. v. Hernandez
Filed 5/15/06 P. v. Hernandez CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALENTIN ROJO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B184266 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA031892) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Robert J. Schuit, Judge. Dismissed.
Herbert R. Lapin for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Marc E. Turchin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Valentin Rojo Hernandez purports to appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment following his no-contest plea to possession for sale of methamphetamine. Hernandez contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 9, 1999, Hernandez was charged by information with possession for sale of methamphetamine.[1] On November 17, 1999, Hernandez, who was represented by counsel, pleaded no contest to the offense in exchange for three years of formal probation, including serving 364 days in county jail. When probation terminated, the case was dismissed on November 6, 2003 (Penal Code section 1203.4).
On April 12, 2005, Hernandez filed a nonstatutory motion to vacate the judgment and, in the alternative, a petition for writ of error coram nobis.[2] He argued defense counsel had been constitutionally ineffective by failing to investigate both the circumstances of the charged offense and the accuracy of his criminal record, to research the law of immigration, and to advise him of the immigration consequences of the plea agreement.[3]
On June 28, 2005, the trial court heard and denied the nonstatutory motion/coram nobis petition. On June 29, Hernandez filed a notice of appeal from the â€
