P. v. Romero
Jesus Ponce Romero appeals from his convictions and sentences for willful, premeditated and deliberate attempted murder, criminal threats, burglary and arson. On appeal he claims the court erred in instructing the jury and in sentencing him. Specifically, Romero claims the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury concerning the police authority to take a mentally ill person into custody and also gave a legally inadequate jury instruction CALCRIM 220 concerning the reasonable doubt standard. Romero also asserts the court erred in: (1) failing to stay his sentence on his criminal threats conviction pursuant to Penal Code section[1]654; (2) imposing consecutive terms on the attempted murder and criminal threats convictions; and (3) failing to award him pre-sentence conduct credits. He also asserts the consecutive sentences violate principles announced in Blakley v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). As we shall explain, only the claim concerning the pre-sentence conduct credits is meritorious. Romero has not shown that the refusal of his requested instruction resulted in prejudicial error. In addition, CALCRIM 220 adequately conveys the matters for the jury to assess when considering the reasonable doubt standard. Furthermore the court properly sentenced him for the attempted murder and criminal threats convictions. Accordingly, Court modify the judgment to award pre sentence conduct credits, and affirm in all other respects.
Comments on P. v. Romero