Filed 12/30/13 P. v. Romero CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058691
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA012334)
LAWRENCE ROMERO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Lawrence Romero appeals after the trial court denied his
petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, known as the Three Strikes
1
Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2012)).1
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on May 8, 2013. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2000, defendant was convicted of petty theft with a prior. (§ 666.)
The trial court found that defendant had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) On July 9, 2001, the court sentenced him to state
prison for 25 years to life.
On December 28, 2012, defendant filed an in pro. per. petition for resentencing
under section 1170.126. The court denied the petition on the ground that defendant’s
prior strike conviction for committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) made him
ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3).
ANALYSIS
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent
defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d
493], setting forth a statement of the case, a brief statement of the facts, and identifying
two potential arguable issues: whether defendant was previously convicted of the offense
of committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)), and whether such conviction made
him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an
independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
MILLER
J.
3