From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Romero

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Dec 30, 2013
E058691 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013)

Opinion

E058691

12-30-2013

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE ROMERO, Defendant and Appellant.

Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.


(Super.Ct.No. FVA012334)


OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Lawrence Romero appeals after the trial court denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, known as the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2012)). Defendant filed a notice of appeal on May 8, 2013. We affirm.

All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2000, defendant was convicted of petty theft with a prior. (§ 666.) The trial court found that defendant had two prior strike convictions. (§§1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) On July 9, 2001, the court sentenced him to state prison for 25 years to life.

On December 28, 2012, defendant filed an in pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1170.126. The court denied the petition on the ground that defendant's prior strike conviction for committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) made him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3).

ANALYSIS

After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a brief statement of the facts, and identifying two potential arguable issues: whether defendant was previously convicted of the offense of committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)), and whether such conviction made him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126.

Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.
We concur: KING

J.
MILLER

J.


Summaries of

People v. Romero

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Dec 30, 2013
E058691 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013)
Case details for

People v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE ROMERO, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Dec 30, 2013

Citations

E058691 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013)

Citing Cases

People v. Romero

This court affirmed the denial in the ensuing appeal. (See People v. Romero (Dec. 30, 2013, E058691 [nonpub.…