People v. Gonzalez CA3

Filed 8/13/14 P. v. Gonzalez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073363

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F03087)

v.

JUAN ANTHONY GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

In November 2012, defendant Juan Anthony Gonzalez pleaded no contest to conspiracy to transport methamphetamine (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1);1 Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (b)) and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)). He admitted allegations that he personally used a shotgun in the commission of the kidnapping (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), that he committed the kidnapping for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and that he had suffered a November 1998 robbery strike conviction

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The parties agreed to a prison sentence lid of 26 years and agreed that defendant could ask the court to dismiss the strike allegation at sentencing. (§ 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).) In March 2013, the trial court considered and denied defendant’s Romero invitation. The prosecution moved to dismiss the conspiracy count pursuant to the sentence lid. Defendant was sentenced to prison for 26 years, consisting of twice the low term of three years for kidnapping, 10 years for firearm use, and 10 years for benefiting his gang. On appeal, defendant contends the denial of his Romero invitation was an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not give individualized consideration to his personal background and the facts of the crime. We affirm. FACTS2 On April 28, 2010, police officers from various agencies responded to a reported kidnapping at defendant’s Sacramento address. They conducted a parole search and recovered a sawed-off shotgun. Officers then learned that defendant and alleged victim H.M. were at a residence in Rio Linda. Officers proceeded to that residence and intercepted a departing car. A loaded shotgun, a bloody shirt with duct tape, nylon rope, and two pillowcases were found in the car. Officers later located defendant and H.M. walking at a location in Rio Linda. H.M. had a large gash on his head. H.M. later told officers that, while held at defendant’s residence, he was struck in the head and kicked several times. H.M. was forced to change clothes and was driven to a tow yard where he and defendant remained for several hours. They later left the tow yard and were