People v. Romero CA3

Filed 10/13/20 P. v. Romero CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090330

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62146422)

v.

GERARDO ROMERO ROMERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Gerardo Romero Romero filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND Defendant was originally charged with the willful, premeditated attempted murder of his wife after shooting her in the chest. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a).)1 It was further alleged that defendant intentionally and personally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and that he inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). A jury found him guilty of the attempted murder and found that during the offense he acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. The jury also found the attached firearm enhancement true. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate indeterminate term of 32 years to life in prison, including seven years to life for the attempted murder offense plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. Defendant appealed his convictions, and in March 2019, we affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion but remanded the matter for the trial court to determine whether to exercise newly-granted discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 to strike the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement. (People v. Romero (Mar. 5, 2019, C085965) [nonpub. opn.].) Upon remand, defense counsel filed a motion to strike the firearm enhancement, arguing the court should exercise its discretion to strike because the enhancement exceeded the punishment for attempted murder, defendant had mental health and substance abuse issues, he seemed to be under the influence of medication or drugs at the time of the offense, he and the victim had a lengthy marriage with minimal issues, he was a hard worker who provided for his family, and that he would still be sufficiently punished if the court struck the firearm enhancement.