People v. Romo

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIE ROMO, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 22, 2018

D072640 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2018)

Opinion

D072640

03-22-2018

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIE ROMO, Defendant and Appellant.

Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No Appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

O'ROURKE, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD256897) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Howard H. Shore, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No Appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Julie Ann Romo pleaded guilty to four counts of grand theft of personal property in excess of $950. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) The court sentenced Romo to five years in local custody. In October 2017, following Romo's petition requesting that the superior court recalculate her custody credits, it ordered Romo's immediate release because she had served her sentence.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Romo appeals under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We granted Romo permission to file a brief but she did not respond.

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel indicates she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for appeal and has asked this court to review the record for error. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified one issue in order to assist the court in its search for error: Does Proposition 57 allow persons serving time in local custody to petition the court for resentencing? We conclude that in light of Romo's release from custody, this issue is moot.

We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the mandate of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Romo has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. DATO, J.