P. v. Romero-Resendiz
Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Romero-Resendiz CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR ROMERO-RESENDIZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
F047451
(Super. Ct. No. 1080633)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John G. Whiteside, Judge.
Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, Oscar Romero-Resendiz, was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale, maintenance of a building for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine, and possession of a short-barreled rifle. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379.6, subd. (a), 11378 and 11366.5, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a).) Three enhancements were also found true including that the offenses occurred in a structure where a child under the age of 16 years was present. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.7, subd. (a).)
On appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted lay opinion testimony to establish the ages of the children who were in the house and therefore the Health and Safety Code section 11379.7, subdivision (a), enhancement must be reversed. Appellant further asserts the court erred in imposing more than one restitution fine.
As discussed below, the testimony regarding the ages of the children was properly admitted. Further, the restitution fines imposed, being under a total of $10,000, were valid. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
DISCUSSION
1. The lay opinion testimony regarding the ages of the children was properly admitted.
When executing the search warrant, Officer Carlos Ramirez escorted two children out of the house. At trial, Officer Randy Bollinger estimated the ages of these children as under 10 and then specified that they were â€
