Filed 7/14/26 P. v. Lugo CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090029
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. DF018549A)
v.
GEORGINA LUGO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David E. Wolf,
Judge.
Martin Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.
INTRODUCTION
In 2025, appellant and defendant Georgina Lugo (appellant) was sentenced to two
years in prison after pleading no contest to multiple offenses based on conspiring to
furnish narcotics to a state prison inmate. She filed a motion to withdraw her plea and
claimed she did not understand that she was going to be sentenced to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), she did not understand the
immigration consequences of her pleas, and other reasons. The motion was denied.
On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations
to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Appellant did not file a supplemental
brief on her own behalf. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the People, on March 2 and April 26, 2024, a codefendant took
narcotics into Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP). On each occasion, the codefendant
picked up the narcotics from appellant, who had obtained and packaged them.
Case No. DF0185471
In Kern County Superior Court case No. DF018547, appellant and two
codefendants were charged with multiple offenses including conspiracy to bring narcotics
into KVSP.
Case No. DF018549
On September 19, 2024, the complaint was filed in case No. DF018549, charging
appellant Lugo and codefendants Yolanda Cano and Julio Ceasar Heredia with the
1 Appellant’s notice of appeal is only from case No. DF018549. We briefly address
case No. DF018547 to place the subsequent plea and sentencing hearings in context.
Since appellant waived the preliminary hearing, the limited facts are from the People’s
opposition to appellant’s motion to withdraw her plea.
2.
following offenses: count 1, conspiracy to commit a violation of Penal Code2 section
4573, bringing a controlled substance into a state prison, on or about and between April 5
and 26, 2024 (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)), and alleged overt acts that appellant and the
codefendants took steps to introduce controlled substances into KVSP; count 2,
conspiracy to commit a violation of section 4573.9, a noncustodial person bringing,
selling, or furnishing a controlled substance to an inmate, on the same dates (§ 182, subd.
(a)(1)), and alleged the same overt acts; count 3, bringing contraband, a controlled
substance, into KVSP on or about April 26, 2024 (§ 4573); and count 4, willfully and
unlawfully selling, furnishing or giving away controlled substances to Inmate Ortiz on or
about April 26, 2024 (§ 4573.9).
Appellant Lugo and codefendant Cano were charged with committing the
following offenses on or about September 16, 2024: count 5, possession of
methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); and count 7, child abuse
(§ 273a, subd. (a)), with a great bodily injury allegation (§ 12022.95).
Appellant was separately charged with committing the following offenses on or
about September 16, 2024: count 6, possession of fentanyl for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11351), while personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (c)); count 8, possession
of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11370.1, subd. (a)); and count 9, misdemeanor assembling or manufacturing a firearm
without applying to the Department of Justice for a unique serial number (§ 29180, subd.
(b)).
Plea Hearing
On October 1, 2024, appellant entered pleas in both cases pursuant to a negotiated
disposition. She also signed change-of-plea, advisements, and waiver of rights forms for
each case. As relevant herein, appellant initialed paragraphs in each change-of-plea form
2 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
3.
that stated her aggregate sentence would be two years “in CDC[R],” and her pleas “will
result” in her deportation, exclusion from admission, and denial of naturalization if she
was not a citizen, deportation was “mandatory” for some offenses, and she “fully
discussed this matter with my attorney and understand the serious immigration
consequences of my plea.” (Bold in original.)
At the plea hearing, the trial court asked appellant if she had signed the plea forms
and initialed the paragraphs, and she said yes. The court asked if she went over the forms
with her attorney, had sufficient time to discuss the nature and consequences of her pleas
with her attorney, understood her rights, and knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
waived those rights. Appellant said yes. The court asked appellant if she had any
questions for the court or her attorney before they proceeded, and appellant said no.
In case No. DF018549, appellant pleaded no contest to count 2, conspiracy to
commit a violation of section 4573.9 (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)); count 4, willfully and
unlawfully selling, furnishing or giving away controlled substances to inmate (§ 4573.9);
count 5, possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §11378); count 6,
possession of fentanyl for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); count 7, child abuse
(§ 273a, subd. (a)); and count 8, possession of a controlled substance while armed with a
loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)).
In case No. DF018547, appellant pleaded no contest to count 2, conspiracy to
commit a violation of section 4573.9 (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)); and count 4, willfully and
unlawfully selling, furnishing or giving away controlled substances to an inmate
(§ 4573.9).
The trial court expressly advised appellant that she would be sentenced to
concurrent terms on all counts, and the aggregate “fixed term on both cases in this plea
would be two years in CDCR custody.” Appellant said she understood.
4.
The trial court further advised appellant that “if you’re not a citizen of the United
States, these convictions would result in an order for your deportation,” and asked if she
understood. Appellant said yes.
The parties stipulated to the factual basis for the pleas, and the court dismissed the
remaining charges and special allegations in both cases.
Motion to Withdraw Pleas
On January 15, 2025, appellant filed a motion to withdraw her pleas. According
to the motion, appellant claimed that she believed that she would receive a fine and
probation or time in a county jail, she was never told that she would be sentenced to state
prison, she was not advised of the immigration consequences, counsel did not consult
with her prior to the plea hearing, and she would not have entered her pleas if she had
been aware of these consequences.
Appellant filed a supplemental motion and further asserted that she entered her
pleas under duress because counsel allegedly told her that if she did not enter her plea,
her children would be taken into custody and she would not be able to see them.
Appellant did not file any declarations or affidavits in support of the arguments in her
motion to withdraw.
Appellant also filed a motion for return of property seized pursuant to a search
warrant on September 13, 2024, consisting of over $39,000 in cash. In support of this
motion, appellant filed a declaration from her mother, who stated the cash belonged to
her.
The People filed opposition to the motion to withdraw, and argued appellant was
fully advised that she would be sentenced to an aggregate term of two years in state
prison for all cases, she was fully advised about the immigration consequences of the
pleas, and her children’s custody and visitation were never addressed as part of the plea
5.
agreement. In support of the opposition, the People filed the transcript of appellant’s plea
hearing and the signed change-of-plea and advisement forms from both cases.3
Denial of Motion to Withdraw
On May 14, 2025, the trial court convened a hearing on appellant’s motion to
withdraw. Appellant declined to testify.
The court denied appellant’s motion based on the transcript of the plea hearing and
the change-of-plea forms, that showed appellant was advised of the immigration
consequences and that she would be sentenced to two years in state prison. The court
also found that her children’s custody and/or visitation was never raised as an issue or
addressed at any time during the plea proceedings. The court also denied appellant’s
motion for return of property because the criminal cases for her two codefendants
remained open.
Sentencing
Also on May 14, 2025, the trial court sentenced appellant consistent with the
negotiated disposition to an aggregate sentence of two years in prison, based on
concurrent lower terms of two years for each of counts 4, 6, 7, and 8, and 16 months for
count 5 in case No. DF018549; and concurrent lower terms of two years for each of
counts 2 and 4 in case No. DF018547.
On June 23, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and her request for a
certificate of probable cause was granted.
3 Appellant’s motion to withdraw erroneously stated that she entered her pleas on
September 23, 2024, and her supplemental motion stated she entered the pleas on
October 26, 2024. The People’s opposition clarified that appellant entered the pleas on
October 1, 2024, and attached the reporter’s transcript of the plea hearing in support of
that fact.
6.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief
also includes counsel’s declaration that appellant was advised she could file her own brief
with this court. On March 17, 2026, this court advised appellant by letter that she could
file a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues. Appellant did not do so.
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or
legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
7.