Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Romero 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086621
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE411882)
v.
MICHAEL JAMES ROMERO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
John Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael James Romero appeals a judgment of conviction after a jury
found him guilty of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187,
subd. (a)).1 The jury returned true findings on allegations that, in the
commission of each offense, Romero personally and intentionally discharged a
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
firearm causing death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The jury also returned true
findings on multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance
allegations. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3) & (15).)
The trial court sentenced Romero to an aggregate prison term of
50 years to life consecutive to two terms of life in prison without the
possibility of parole. The court awarded 1,217 credits to Romero; imposed a
$10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); and ordered him to pay a court
security fee of $80 (§ 1465.8), a criminal conviction assessment fee of $60
(Gov. Code, § 70373), and victim restitution to the victims’ next of kin in an
amount to be determined (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).
Romero’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no
arguable issues for reversal, but seeking our independent review of the record
under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738. We informed Romero of his right to file a supplemental brief,
but he did not respond. Based on our independent review of the record, we
find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Therefore, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Shootings
On January 21, 2003, between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m., a man who lived on
Willow Glen Drive in El Cajon was walking his dog near his driveway when
he heard two male voices arguing in Spanish. Shortly after, the man and
another family member heard a series of gunshots, followed by a pause, and
then another series of gunshots. The man ran up the street towards the
gunshot sounds and found two deceased victims on the ground. As the man
approached the scene, he heard what sounded like a pickup truck speeding
away.
2
Sometime before 6:00 a.m., another Willow Glen Drive resident was
awakened by the sound of a man outside his bedroom window. The man
sounded like he was talking on the phone. The man said he did not know
where he was, and he needed a ride.
The gunshot victims were 30-year-old Patrick Greene and his 17-year-
old nephew, Brandon Vigil. Greene died from a gunshot wound to the head,
while Vigil died from multiple gunshot wounds to his back, thigh, arm, and
the back of his head. Six nine-millimeter shell casings were recovered from
the crime scene.
During the ensuing homicide investigation, law enforcement officers
learned that Greene was a drug user who owed a debt to a man named
F. Williams. The night before the shootings, Williams called Greene and said
he would forgive the debt if Greene accompanied him on a drug deal. Vigil
did not like or trust Williams, so he agreed to join Greene on the drug deal.
Greene’s sister saw Greene and Vigil leave together and get into a truck with
Williams later that evening.
Law enforcement officers also learned that Romero’s sister had filed a
police report the day before the shootings in which she claimed that Greene
had sexually assaulted her within the preceding 24 hours. In an interview
with law enforcement, Romero admitted he was aware of his sister’s sexual
assault claim, but denied knowledge of the fatal shootings of Greene and
Vigil.
Williams was temporarily detained in connection with the homicides of
Greene and Vigil, but ultimately released from custody due to a lack of
evidence. At the time, law enforcement officers did not detain Romero
because they did not have sufficient evidence linking him to the homicides.
3
B. The Reopening of the Homicide Investigation
In 2022, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department reopened the
investigation into the homicides of Greene and Vigil. As part of the
investigation, cold case detectives re-analyzed data collected from Romero’s
cell phone in 2003. They learned that Romero’s cell phone made outgoing
phone calls on January 21, 2003 (the morning of the homicides) at 5:47 am.,
5:54 a.m., and 5:56 a.m. At the time of the calls, Romero’s cell phone was
connected to a cell phone tower near Willow Glen Drive in El Cajon.
During the investigation, a detective called Romero and told him that
she was investigating the shootings and wanted to speak with him. After
placing this call, detectives arranged for a confidential informant to elicit
information from Romero. The informant was 14 or 15 years old when he
met Romero. According to the informant, he and Romero were “best friends”
and “[c]lose like brothers.” The informant was also friends with the victims.
In multiple conversations over the years, Romero told the informant
that Romero and Williams had conspired to kill Greene because Greene owed
money to Williams and sexually assaulted Romero’s sister. According to the
informant, Romero admitted that he and Williams picked up Greene and
Vigil on the night of the murders, and they all hung out. At some point,
Romero, Greene, Vigil, and an unknown driver drove in a van towards a
Native American reservation, but pulled over en route for the ostensible
purpose of taking a bathroom break. During the bathroom break, Romero
shot Greene in the head and then shot Vigil as he tried to run away. The
4
driver then drove off and left Romero behind. Romero hid himself until
sunrise to avoid detection.2
On March 24, 2022, the informant wore a wire, went to Romero’s house,
and had a conversation with Romero. During the conversation, Romero said
he was not “stressing” about the reopened homicide investigation because
there were only three people who could “get” him—the driver, the “one that’s
already gone” (referring to Williams, who had since passed away), and a third
man named “E,” or “Ewok,” who had helped arrange the shootings. Romero
told the informant that the driver “dipped on [him], because [the driver]
thought [Romero] was going to do him too ….” Romero also told the
informant that he “fell asleep” while he was hiding, and he later left the
crime scene on foot. Romero said a police officer stopped him at one point and
asked if he had a gun, but “that shit was already fuckin’ buried.”
On March 29, 2022, after detectives interviewed Romero, the informant
again wore a wire and spoke with Romero. Romero told the informant that
he was nervous the driver may have spoken with law enforcement. Romero
told the informant that Williams gave him a gun to use for the murders, and
he cleaned the gun before he returned it, “so there was no way that anything
of [his] [was] on it.” The informant said, “the killer’s you though,” and
Romero replied, “Yeah. Hell yeah.” Romero then told the informant that the
driver “didn’t know” beforehand about the plan to murder Greene and Vigil,
but Romero told the driver that he had to “take a piss. … So, [the driver]
pulled over. And then boom, I domed him. Yeah. So, [the driver] … he didn’t
2 The informant cooperated with law enforcement and testified at
Romero’s trial in exchange for the dismissal of an unrelated attempted
murder charge. In connection with that charge, the informant pleaded guilty
to the lesser offense of assault with a firearm.
5
know until, ‘til he heard that first one.” Romero added, “And then the other
one was sitting right here. I made him jump out right here. He tried, he
tried to push. … [A]s soon as he … hit the pavement, he tried to book it.”
At trial, Romero admitted that he told the informant he had shot and
killed Greene and Vigil. However, Romero claimed the statements were
untrue. According to Romero, he made the statements to impress the
informant and make himself look “tough, like a gangster.”
DISCUSSION
Romero’s appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief indicating that
counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on
appeal. Counsel asks this court to independently review the record for error
as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738.
Counsel identified two potential issues to assist us in our review:
(1) whether the trial court erred when it denied Romero’s motion to dismiss
based on pre-accusation delay; and (2) whether the trial court erred when it
failed to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on provocation.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders,
and considered the potential issues identified by Romero’s counsel. We
conclude there is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or
modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent
counsel has represented Romero in this appeal.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, J.
KELETY, J.
7