State of Louisiana v. Juan Dedilos Villarreal Gamboa

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-807

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS

JUAN DEDILOS VILLARREAL GAMBOA

ek Heo ok a ok

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 20757-18
HONORABLE DAVID A. RITCHIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

ae 2B oe ok oe ois os fe ok

VAN H. KYZAR
JUDGE

KEKE KEE EK

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Van H. Kyzar, and Sharon Darville
Wilson, Judges.

AFFIRMED;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Douglas Lee Harville

Louisiana Appellate Project

P. O. Box 52988

Shreveport, LA 71135-2988

(318) 222-1700

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Juan Dedilos Villarreal Gamboa

Stephen C. Dwight

District Attorney

John Eric Turner

Assistant District Attorney

Fourteenth Judicial District

901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800

Lake Charles, LA 70601

(337) 437-3400

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

KYZAR, Judge.

Defendant, after pleading guilty to the charge of aggravated flight from an
officer, appeals his conviction and five-year sentence, which was ordered to run
consecutively with a conviction and five-year sentence imposed under a different
document number. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the conviction and
sentence and remand the matter with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2018, Defendant, Juan Dedilos Villarreal Gamboa, was
charged by bill of information in docket number 20757-18 with the offense of
ageravated flight from an officer, in violation of La.R.S. 14:108.1. The bill alleged
that Defendant:

[O]n or about October 16, 2018, being the driver of a motor vehicle,

did intentionally refuse to bring said vehicle to a stop knowing that he

has been given a visual and audible signal to stop by a police officer,

under circumstances wherein human life was endangered, when the

officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the driver has committed

an offense[.]

Defendant was additionally charged under docket number 19468-18 with
ageravated flight from an officer and under docket number 2786-11 with a probation
violation for another prior felony offense.

Defendant is not a citizen of the United States. He initially pled not guilty to
the charges on November 7, 2018, but on March 27, 2019, withdrew his not guilty
pleas and entered pleas of guilty to all three charges. There was no agreed upon
sentence as to any of the charges. After Defendant pled guilty, the trial court
sentenced him to serve five years of imprisonment at hard labor on each charge, with

the sentence imposed under docket number 20757-18 to run consecutively with that

imposed under docket number 19468-18 and concurrently to that imposed under

docket number 3786-11.' On June 13, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider
his sentences in all docket numbers. On August 12, 2019, the trial court denied the
motion as untimely but also found that the sentences imposed were appropriate.

On April 9, 2021, Defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief on
the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that his counsel failed to

adequately advise him of the impact his guilty pleas would have on his immigration

status as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010).” On
April 1, 2022, the State filed procedural objections to the application for post-
conviction relief, and, on that same date, the trial court stayed Defendant’s
application pending this appeal.

The trial! court granted Defendant’s motion for appeal “as it relates to his
sentence, but not his conviction” because Defendant signed a plea form in which he

waived his right to appeal from a verdict of guilty. Regardless of this finding,

Defendant’s only assignment of error on appeal relates to his guilty plea.”

' Defendant pled guilty in docket number 19468-18, and his probation was revoked in
docket number 3786-11. Defendant filed appeals in both lower court docket numbers. The appeal
in 19468-18 was lodged with this court as 22-806 and is considered in a separate opinion.
However, the appeal lodged in 3786-11 was dismissed because the judgment at issue was non-
appealable. State v. Gamboa, 22-805 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/23) (unpublished opinion) (2023 WL
2293608).

° Padilla dealt exclusively with a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. Padilla asserted that
his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him, an immigrant, that his felony guilty plea could
or would result in his deportation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari “to decide whether, as a
matter of federal Jaw, Padilla’s counsel had an obligation to advise him that the offense to which
he was pleading guilty would result in his removal from the country.” Padilla, 559 U.S. at 360.
The Supreme Court held that accepting his allegations as true, Padilla sufficiently alleged
constitutional deficiency to satisfy the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104
S.Ct. 2052 (1984). However, the Court went on to state that whether Padilla was entitled to relief
on his claim would depend on whether he could satisfy Strickland’s second prong, prejudice, a
matter it left to the lower state court to consider in the first instance.

* The plea form signed by Defendant stated that he waived the right to appeal from a verdict
of guilty, and the trial court informed Defendant that he waived the “right to appeal a verdict of
guilty if you were convicted by a jury, but when you plead guilty you waive all those rights.” The
language used in the form and by the trial court did not exclude review of the voluntariness of
Defendant’s plea, which is the issue raised in this appeal. However, the trial court merely granted
Defendant the right to appeal his sentence. In State v. Guilbeau, 11-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/11), 71

2

On appeal, Defendant raises the following assignment of error:
The record on appeal does not establish that Mr. Gamboa was advised
about the impact his guilty pleas could have on his immigration status

as required by Padilla. Did the Trial Court err when it found that Mr.
Gamboa’s plea was knowing and voluntary?

OPINION
As set forth above, Defendant appealed his convictions in this case and the
conviction in trial court docket number 19468-18 for an identical offense occurring
at a different time. The appeals were not consolidated although the allegations of
error in each are the same, and the arguments in brief are identical in each case. In
the companion case, State v. Juan Dedilos Villarreal Gamboa, 22-806, (La.App. 3
Cir. _/ /23)_ So.3d_, this court affirmed the conviction and sentence therein, and
pursuant to the errors patent review, the trial court was ordered to have the minutes
of court corrected to reflect to accurately reflect that it imposed the five-year
sentence on “each count.” For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we affirm the
conviction and sentence in the instant appeal and likewise order the trial court to
have the minutes of court corrected to accurately reflect that it imposed the five-year
sentence on each count.
DECREE
The conviction and sentence imposed in trial court docket number 20757-18
is affirmed. The trial court is ordered to have the minutes of court corrected to
accurately reflect that it imposed the five-year sentence on each count.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

So.3d 1010, this court noted that the defendant’s motion to appeal prayed only for an appeal from
the order denying his motion to reconsider his sentence, but the language of the order granting the
appeal was general and not restricted to only the order denying the motion for reconsideration.
This court stated: “Arguably, issues unrelated to sentencing are thus not properly before this court.
Nevertheless, because appeals are favored, we will address Defendant’s second assignment of
error[,]” which involved the factual basis for the defendant’s plea. /d. at 1017. Following our
rationale in Guilbeau, we will consider Defendant’s assignment of error.

3