People v. Romero CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE411882
- Trial judge
- John Thompson
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Buchanan, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court convicted Michael James Romero of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced him to 50 years to life consecutive to two terms of life without parole. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Romero's motion to dismiss based on pre-accusation delay“whether the trial court erred when it denied Romero’s motion to dismiss based on pre-accusation delay” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court stated it reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, but did not provide specific reasoning or analysis regarding the pre-accusation delay claim. |
Failure to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on provocation“whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on provocation” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court stated it reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, but did not provide specific reasoning or analysis regarding the jury instruction claim. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no arguable issues are identified.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court affirms based on a finding of no arguable issues. It does not address the specific legal merits of the two potential issues identified by counsel (pre-accusation delay and jury instructions), nor does it cite any substantive criminal law authorities to support the conclusion that these issues were meritless.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing a jury trial, the San Diego Superior Court entered judgment convicting Michael James Romero of two counts of first degree murder with firearm-discharge, multiple-murder and lying-in-wait findings, and sentenced him to 50 years to life plus two consecutive LWOP terms, with fines, fees and victim restitution. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying two potential issues (denial of a motion to dismiss for pre-accusation delay and failure to instruct on provocation voluntary manslaughter); the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record)“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Therefore, we affirm.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Under Wende and Anders, when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues the reviewing court must independently examine the record; the opinion recites that it did so, summarizes the facts and procedural history, and finds nothing arguable. The recited evidence (wired recorded admissions, cell-site data placing Romero near the scene, informant testimony, and Romero's own trial admission that he made the statements) is overwhelming, so the conclusion is consistent with the authorities cited. |
Denial of Romero's motion to dismiss based on pre-accusation delay“(1) whether the trial court erred when it denied Romero’s motion to dismiss based on pre-accusation delay” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion merely lists this as a potential issue flagged by counsel and states no analysis, so the reasoning cannot be independently checked. The background suggests a justification for the roughly 19-year delay (insufficient evidence in 2003; cold-case re-analysis and new informant recordings in 2022), which would ordinarily outweigh unspecified prejudice under the Nelson/Cowan balancing framework, but the opinion does not describe what prejudice Romero claimed, so I cannot confirm the ruling was correct. |
Failure to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on provocation“(2) whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on provocation” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion gives no analysis of this issue. The recited facts (a planned killing under a pretext bathroom stop a day after the sister's assault report, lying-in-wait findings, and Romero's trial defense that his admissions were false boasts) make it unlikely substantial evidence supported a heat-of-passion theory, and any error would likely be harmless given the special-circumstance findings. Still, with no reasoning in the opinion, I cannot verify the conclusion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, with a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court then independently examines the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, and reaches a result that the described evidence of guilt strongly supports. It does not, however, explain why the two potential issues counsel flagged (pre-accusation delay and provocation instruction) lack merit, leaving the reader unable to test its conclusions on those points.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12