(Super. Ct. No. 07F04392)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Glenn Mark Robinson appeals the sentence imposed following his convictions for two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),*fn1 with true findings he had six prior strike convictions (§§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)). He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero*fn2 motion and failing to dismiss at least five of his six prior convictions. We affirm.
On April 26, 2007, defendant went into the El Dorado Savings Bank, handed teller Grace Hernandez a note demanding money in specified denominations, and threatened to hurt someone if she did not give him the money. Defendant was very agitated and Hernandez was afraid of him, as she believed his threat. Hernandez gave him all the money in her bank drawers. Defendant took the money and left the bank.
Four days later, defendant went into a Citibank and passed a note to assistant operations manager Betty Bouaphavong, who was working as a teller. The note said "robbery" and listed monetary denominations. Bouaphavong initially misunderstood defendant's intentions and returned the note to him, to which he responded "This is a robbery" and "hurry up." Defendant then threatened to hurt the next person in line, an elderly client, if Bouaphavong did not give him the money. Bouaphanvong gave defendant the money. He stuffed it in his shirt and left the bank after being assured Bouaphavong did not have more money at her station.
Eventually law enforcement tracked defendant to a gas station. With guns drawn, officers demanded defendant get out of his car. Defendant refused to comply with officers' demands for approximately 50 minutes. He appeared agitated, nervous, and sweaty. Defendant called his estranged wife during the standoff. He told her he had robbed a bank, been caught, and was going to die. On the phone, defendant sounded sad and frightened, but not angry or discombobulated. After about 50 minutes, defendant threw his wallet, keys, and an envelope addressed to his estranged wife out the window of the car. Shortly thereafter, defendant exited the vehicle and was handcuffed and arrested. In defendant's vehicle, officers found a backpack containing over $4,700 of stolen money, and a note written on a receipt from a store in the same complex as the bank that said "Robbery" and listed monetary denominations.
In the months prior to the robberies, defendant had lost his contracting business and his family finances had deteriorated. Also during that time, his pattern of drug-induced behavior occurred more often. On the rare occasions his ex-wife spoke with him, he seemed irrational.
Defendant was charged with two counts of second degree robbery. (§ 211.) It was also alleged defendant had six prior strike convictions (§§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i)), six prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Ultimately, the prosecution moved to dismiss the prior prison term allegation and three of the prior serious felony conviction allegations. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of both robbery charges. In bifurcated proceedings, the court found the three prior serious felony convictions and all six prior strike conviction allegations true.
Defendant filed a Romero motion, requesting the court strike the prior strike convictions in the interest of justice. Defendant argued all of his crimes were committed as the result of drug use and the concomitant effects on his psyche, and throughout his extensive criminal history he had never physically injured anyone. He submitted a psychological evaluation that concluded he had symptoms of amphetamine-induced psychosis at the time the offenses were committed. Defendant also argued the crime was not violent in nature, was relatively minor compared to other robberies in that no one was hurt, and he did not use any weapons. The prosecution filed written opposition.
The court heard oral argument on the issue. Counsel argued that defendant would work hard to address his drug addiction and had shown he could contribute to society when he was clean and sober. Counsel noted defendant had taken responsibility for his actions and expressed remorse over the harm caused to his victims. Counsel reiterated the point that defendant had "never left a single injured victim in his wake. He has never physically harmed a single person in his life." Defendant also personally addressed the court. He apologized for his criminal behavior, and claimed he posed no threat and had not intended to harm anyone. He admitted he had relapsed and been using drugs when he committed this offense but stated that when he was clean and sober he functioned well within society, and he had been clean and sober for ...