People v. Jeronimo CA5

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 20, 2023
• Docket: F085228
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Jeronimo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F085228 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Tulare Super. Ct. v. No. VCF333853A)

JESUS JERONIMO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge. Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J. In an amended information filed September 27, 2016, the Tulare County District Attorney charged defendant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 committed during a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and while lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)). The information further alleged defendant personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury and death to the victim. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) Defendant was jointly tried alongside codefendants Angelita Reyes and Arturo Hernandez Pompa (Arturo). The evidence at trial was summarized in the nonpublished opinion in People v. Jeronimo, May 5, 2022, F078575 (Jeronimo I), which is incorporated herein by reference. (See In re Ruedas (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 777, 783.) The jury convicted defendant of murder and found the various allegations of the information to be true. The court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) Defendant appealed the judgment. In an opinion filed December 22, 2021, this court struck defendant’s parole revocation fine but otherwise affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted review of that opinion and transferred it back to this court for reconsideration pursuant to People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688. We remanded this matter “for the [trial] court to determine how it would like to exercise the discretion it has pursuant to Tirado.” (Jeronimo I, supra, F078575.) The trial court held a hearing on October 24, 2022, and declined to exercise its discretion to reduce or strike the punishment for the section 12022.53 enhancement. On March 10, 2023, the court resentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life. Defendant now appeals again. Counsel has filed a Wende brief.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

2. After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

3.