P. v. Lopez
A jury found defendant Mario Antonio Lopez guilty as charged of being an active member of a criminal street gang (Penal Code, § 186.22, subd. (a) [1]), and being a past‑convicted felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)[2]). The jury also found true an allegation that the latter offense was “committed . . . with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members†(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). After finding true allegations that defendant had a prior felony conviction for purposes of various enhancing statutes (§§ 667, 667.5, 1170.12), the trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike the serious violent felony prior pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and sentenced him to state prison for an aggregate term of nine years.
On this timely appeal, defendant makes numerous and varied claims of error. He first contends that his motion to suppress evidence was erroneously denied on the ground that he lacked standing to contest the search of the residence where the firearm was found. Next, he contends that substantial evidence does not support either of the gang‑related penalties, and that substantial evidence is also lacking on the crucial point of his possession of the weapon. Next he argues that the trial court erred when it responded to a question from the jury. Finally, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his Romero motion to strike his prior felony conviction so that he would not be sentenced in accordance with the Three Strikes law. We conclude that only the last of these contentions has merit, and that the error requires resentencing, but otherwise affirm.
Comments on P. v. Lopez