People v. Dennis CA3

Filed 7/21/22 P. v. Dennis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093986

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15F00662)

v.

ROME ROBERT DENNIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Rome Robert Dennis on two counts of robbery, and in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found “true” prior serious felony and strike allegations. In our prior unpublished opinion, we rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion in failing to strike one or both of his prior strike convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). (See People v. Dennis (Dec. 31, 2019, C082634) [nonpub. opn.].) But we agreed with defendant that he was entitled to “the opportunity to argue to the trial court

1

that it should exercise its newly authorized discretion” “to strike one or both of the prior serious felony enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).”1 On remand, the trial court struck the prior serious felony enhancements that it had previously imposed and appeared to decline to conduct a new Romero analysis. Defendant appeals from resentencing, arguing the trial court erred when it declined to conduct a full resentencing hearing on remand from his prior appeal. He further contends that, on remand to the trial court from this appeal, the trial court must consider recent legislation when resentencing him. We will affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2015, defendant entered a bank and “scribbled a note on a business card and slid it across for [a bank employee] to read. The note said, ‘It’s a robbery. I need 9.’ Defendant then stated he needed $9,000 and told [the bank employee] he had a gun and a bomb.” Defendant left the bank with nearly $3,000. “An amended information charged defendant with two counts of robbery, and alleged two prior serious felony convictions that also constituted strikes within the meaning of the three strikes law. (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)” “The jury found defendant guilty of all charges. In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found the prior serious felony and strike allegations true. Prior to sentencing, defendant submitted a statement in mitigation asking the court to strike his prior strikes, arguing the court should grant him leniency because he had been self-medicating a mental illness or disability that did not amount to a defense and that he was ‘not “in the spirit” ’ of the three strikes law. . . . [¶] The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 35 years to life calculated as follows: an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for each robbery conviction, to be served concurrently, and a consecutive 10-year sentence imposed for