People v. Floyd CA3

Filed 7/27/15 P. v. Floyd CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C076236

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F07539)

v.

JAMES EDWARD FLOYD,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant James Floyd of one count of first degree residential burglary and one count of contempt of court for violation of a protective order, a misdemeanor. The court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for first degree burglary. The trial court denied defendant’s Romero1 motion to strike his prior felony conviction, and sentenced defendant to a total of 13 years in prison. The court doubled the midterm for burglary pursuant to Penal Code section 667,

1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).

1

subdivision (e)(1), sentencing defendant to eight years in prison.2 The trial court also imposed a five-year enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1) for the prior conviction for a serious felony. Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The present burglary conviction arose out of an incident on October 20, 2013, at the apartment of Nabresha Gethers, defendant’s onetime girlfriend and mother of his child. They had known each other since 2009, and during their time together Gethers worked as a prostitute, giving all of her earnings to defendant. Around August 2011, when they were living in Los Angeles, defendant and Gethers had an argument and hit each other. The police were called, defendant was arrested, and the court issued a restraining order against him. Their son was born in 2012. Gethers’s relationship with defendant was on-and-off during that time. After the baby was born, Gethers did not want to be with defendant, and stopped working as a prostitute because she wanted a better life for her son. However, defendant kept calling Gethers because he wanted to be with her and with his son. He would go to Gethers’s parents’ house and honk his horn in the middle of the night, or break Gethers’s windshield out if she did not let him see his son. Gethers did not call the authorities every time defendant showed up at her apartment because she was afraid of being evicted. But she called the sheriff on October