People v. Romero CA2/6

Filed 10/7/20 P. v. Romero CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B299959 (Super. Ct. No. 2019006103) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ANTHONY CRUZ ROMERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Cruz Romero appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of grand theft of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (d)(2)). The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years in state prison. Romero contends the court erred when it selected the upper term. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Romero went into a gun store. An employee was showing another customer a handgun. The customer left without purchasing the gun, which remained on the counter.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Romero asked the employee about antique rifles. When the employee went to a storage room to retrieve a rifle, Romero put the handgun on the counter in his pocket. He left without paying for it after the employee returned from the storage room. The employee later discovered the missing handgun. He and the store owner reviewed surveillance video and discovered that Romero had taken it. They reported the theft to the police. Two days later, a police officer saw Romero wearing clothes similar to those worn by the suspect in the surveillance video. Based on his previous contact with Romero, the officer suspected that the handgun might be in Romero’s car. He and a detective canvassed the area for the car. They found it, searched it, and discovered the stolen gun inside. A jury convicted Romero of grand theft of a firearm. The probation department recommended that the trial court place him on three years of formal probation, noting that he had successfully completed probation in the past. The court rejected the recommendation. The court stated that Romero’s criminal history was significant, and he posed a danger to society based on his prior convictions. Also, he committed his crime while on probation, and did so in a manner that was “preplanned and done with sophistication.” The court imposed the upper term of three years in state prison. DISCUSSION Romero contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him to the upper term of three years in state prison. We disagree.