P. v. Wingo
Filed 5/19/06 P. v. Wingo CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEROME GLEN WINGO, Defendant and Appellant. | H029301 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CC475904) |
Defendant, Jerome Glen Wingo, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to register a new address with law enforcement within five working days of changing his residence, in violation of Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(A). He also admitted suffering one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b) - (i), 1170.12), and serving one prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
The trial court heard and denied a motion brought pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss the strike conviction. Defendant was then sentenced to state prison for the doubled lower term of 32 months. The court struck the punishment for the prior prison term enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only his sentence.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf. He has filed a brief letter, complaining generally that his sentence was unfair and that he will always be the subject of discrimination because of his criminal history as a sex offender.
Defendant raises one specific issue in his letter, arguing that the trial court improperly denied the Romero motion based on a report of defendant's suspicious behavior around neighborhood children. This argument is not supported by the record before us. At the hearing, the trial court initially presented its reasons for denying the motion as follows: â€
