People v. Salido CA2/3

Filed 8/30/16 P. v. Salido CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B267644

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA431434) v.

RIGOBERTO SALIDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Rigoberto Salido of attempted murder and illegally cultivating marijuana. The jury also found Salido personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the victim to suffer great bodily injury under Penal Code1 section 12022.53, subdivision (d), and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim under section 12022.7, subdivision (a). In a bifurcated proceeding, Salido admitted he suffered four prior convictions for robbery, all of which qualify as serious or violent felonies for purposes of the three-strikes law. Salido then made an oral motion to strike his prior convictions under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), which the court denied. The court sentenced Salido to an aggregate term of 53 years to life in prison. On appeal, Salido contends, and the People concede, the court should have stayed execution of the three-year enhancement imposed under section 12022.7, subdivision (a). Salido also contends the court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion. We modify Salido’s sentence by staying the three-year great bodily injury enhancement. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 7, 2014, Alfredo Leal met Vanessa Galvez, his ex-girlfriend, at Obregon Park in Los Angeles. Leal started arguing with Galvez because she was texting another person. After Galvez dropped the two phones she was carrying, Leal picked one of them up and began reading her text messages. Leal returned one of Galvez’s phones but kept the other. Later that day, Leal received several phone calls and text messages asking him to return Galvez’s phone. Leal replied, “ ‘come get it.’ ” Around 8:00 p.m., Salido, Galvez’s boyfriend, arrived at Leal’s house in a black car. As Leal approached the car, Salido drew a gun. When he saw the gun, Leal ran back toward his home. Salido then