People v. Romero CA2/5

Filed 1/11/21 P. v. Romero CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B305900

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. VA115049-03)

v.

DANIEL ROMERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

Defendant and appellant Daniel Romero appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus in the Superior Court. In an amended information filed on July 15, 2011 against Romero and two co-defendants, Romero was charged with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 [count 2]),1 attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664 [count 3]), and kidnapping to commit another crime (§ 209, subd. (b)(1) [count 4]). It was alleged as to all three counts that Romero committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) With respect to count 4, it was further alleged that the offense was punishable by a life sentence in state prison. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5).) On November 3, 2011, Romero pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (§ 211) and the gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). He was sentenced to the high term of 5 years in state prison, plus 10 years for the enhancement, for a total determinate sentence of 15 years. On April 19, 2019, Romero petitioned for habeas corpus in the Superior Court. In his petition, Romero requested a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, at which he could present evidence of youth-related factors relevant to his parole determination. In a minute order dated January 16, 2020, the trial court summarily