P. v Romes
Filed 10/30/07 P. v Romes CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN ROMES, Defendant and Appellant. | D049659 (Super. Ct. No. 197581) |
In re KEVIN ROMES on Habeas Corpus. | D051545 |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County and petition for writ of habeas corpus, David Danielsen, Judge. Judgment affirmed, sentences vacated and remanded with directions. Petition dismissed.
Kevin Romes entered a negotiated guilty plea in case No. SCD197581 to selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike (Pen. Code, 667 subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668) and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b), 668). He also entered a negotiated guilty plea in case No. SCN202822 to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and admitted the same strike. The change of plea forms listed concurrent sentences as a term of the plea bargain. At the change of plea hearing, the promise of concurrent sentences was not mentioned and the court told Romes he was "facing the possibility of consecutive sentences." The court sentenced Romes to eight years four months in prison: six years for selling methamphetamine (twice the middle term), 16 months for burglary (one-third the middle term, doubled), and one year for the prior prison term. The court declined to dismiss the strike and noted, "Unfortunately, the strike law does require consecutive sentencing."
Romes appeals and has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends because his sentence did not comport with the plea bargains, the judgment should be reversed and the matter remanded to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas. The People properly concede the point. (People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024-26; People v. Renfro (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 223, 233.)
DISPOSITION
The judgments of conviction are affirmed. The sentences in both cases are reversed. The cases are remanded with directions to allow Romes to withdraw his pleas.
The petition is dismissed as moot.
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
