Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA049146
THE COURT:Defendant and appellant, Tomas Farnetti, appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of violating Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court denied probation and sentenced him to a total term of six years, calculated by doubling the high term of three years by reason of a prior strike.
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which contained an acknowledgement that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit by brief or letter any contentions or arguments that he wished us to consider. Appellant filed a supplemental brief in response.
According to the record, an information filed on June 17, 2010 charged appellant in count 1with making criminal threats in violation of section 422 and in count 2 with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of section 12021, subdivision (a)(1). The information further alleged that appellant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense within the meaning of sections 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1) and 12022.5, subdivision (a), and that appellant had suffered a prior strike and prior serious felony conviction pursuant to sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivision (a), and 667, subdivision (a)(1). Appellant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations.
The charges stemmed from statements appellant made to the grandmother of one of his son’s friends. On April 16, 2010, appellant’s son and one of his friends got into a fight. The friend’s grandmother, Cheryl Henderson, walked over to her grandson when she saw appellant confront him directly about the fight. Appellant was upset when Henderson told him he should not be handling the situation in that manner, and he told Henderson that he was going to “murk” her and thereafter said that he was going to kill her. Henderson became fearful. When appellant then said he was going to get his gun, Henderson sent her grandchildren into their house. Moments later, appellant’s son came to the door wearing boxing gloves, saying that he wanted to fight. Henderson saw appellant across the street; he showed her that he was holding a gun and Henderson thought he was going to shoot her. She called the police. Officers recovered a holster from appellant’s home. Later, appellant admitted to officers that he had owned a gun at the time of the incident, but sold it approximately one and one-half weeks before meeting with the officers.
A jury trial commenced on August 24, 2010 and, on August 27, 2010, the jury returned a verdict finding appellant not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2. During deliberations, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the prior allegation and found true that appellant had suffered a prior felony conviction for a violation of section 422. The trial court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to section 1385. It denied probation and sentenced appellant to the high term of three years on count 2, doubled to a total term of six years for the prior strike. The trial court further found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and imposed a concurrent six-year sentence for the violation. The trial court imposed several statutorily-mandated fees and fines. This appeal followed.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
We have also examined appellant’s supplemental brief and find that appellant has raised no basis for reversal. Appellant’s arguments focus on the denial of his Romero motion to dismiss his prior strike. (See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) Contrary to appellant’s assertion, although his counsel vigorously advocated on his behalf, the trial court carefully “considered various factors, including the constitutional rights of the defendant, the interests of society and the fair prosecution of crimes that are properly charged, the nature of the defendant’s current felony offenses, [and] the nature of his prior felony convictions, including the nature of the prior serious felony conviction, which is the strike.” After evaluating those factors on the record, the trial court determined that appellant did not fall outside the purposes or the scope of the three-strikes sentencing law, specifically taking into account the age of appellant’s prior convictions, his prior custody history, the nature of the prior serious felony convictions and appellant’s age at the time of those convictions. Appellant failed to meet his burden to show that the trial court’s denial of his Romero motion was an abuse of discretion. (E.g., People v. Philpot (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 893, 904–905.)
The judgment is affirmed.