1

Filed 5/28/24 P. v. Romero CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OMAR SANTANA ROMERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A167815

 

 (Napa County Super. Ct.

 No. 22CR001071)

In 2023, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Omar Santana

Romero1 pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a person with whom 

he had a dating relationship and admitted inflicting great bodily injury. He 

also admitted his conduct fell within five aggravating sentencing factors. The 

trial court sentenced him to the middle term of three years in prison for the 

offense, and it struck the punishment for the enhancement. On appeal, he 

argues the court erred by failing to treat the low-term sentence as 

presumptive given evidence that his childhood trauma contributed to the

commission of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(6).) We affirm.

1 Defendant’s surname inconsistently appears in the record as 

Santanaromero and Santana Romero. We adopt the form used by defendant.
2

BACKGROUND

Defendant and Jane Doe were in a dating relationship for five years. 

During that time, she estimated he assaulted her on at least 20 occasions; he

put the number at 50 times or more. On May 6, 2022, she called the police 

and reported he recently assaulted her twice. When officers arrived, they 

observed “severe” facial injuries. Doe’s left eye was “nearly swollen shut,” 

“the left side of her face above her eye” was “black-and-blue,” her nose and 

right eye were bruised, and she had a carpet burn on her forehead.

Doe described the assaults to the officers. She recounted an incident 

two days prior where defendant repeatedly slapped her. She curled into the 

fetal position to protect herself, but he forcefully pulled her off the couch by 

her hair and threw her onto the carpet. She lost consciousness. She came to

in a different room, feeling “[e]xcruciating” pain “all over her face.” She 

believed he’d “kicked or punched” her. She asked him to take her to the 

hospital, but he refused.

She also described an incident that took place earlier that day. She

and defendant drove to a park to discuss their troubled relationship. Because 

he was not engaged in the conversation, she decided she would drive them 

back to their apartment. As she was driving, he grabbed at the steering 

wheel and attempted to steer the car into oncoming traffic; ultimately, the 

car crashed into a fence. She eventually drove them back to their apartment 

complex and told him she wanted to take a walk by herself. Nevertheless, he

got out of the car and began following her. She asked him to leave her alone, 

but he continued to follow her and began insulting her. Fearful he would 

assault her, she took out her cellphone to call the police, but he grabbed it 

and began walking towards their apartment. She went to a neighbor’s home 

and used their phone to summon the police.
3

Defendant also called 911 and asked to speak with police about his 

actions. When the police made contact, he waived his rights under Miranda

v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, told them about his relationship with Doe,

and discussed the recent incidents. He admitted taking her phone that day 

and kicking at her feet to trip her. He acknowledge that two days earlier, he

slapped her, pulled her off the couch, and “stomp[ed] her using his foot across 

her face.”

Pursuant to a January 2023 plea agreement, Santana Romero pled no 

contest to inflicting corporal injury on a person with whom he had a dating 

relationship and admitted inflicting great bodily injury on Doe. (Pen. Code, 

§§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (e); undesignated statutory references are 

to this code.) He also admitted his conduct fell within five aggravating 

sentencing factors alleged in the information. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8), (a)(11), (b)(1); undesignated rule references are to 

these rules.) The parties agreed the sentence would not exceed five years in 

prison.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered the probation 

report, a diagnostic report prepared by the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, defendant’s statement, and the parties’ briefs and 

arguments — including defense counsel’s argument that his client had 

experienced “childhood trauma” “clearly related to the commission” of the 

offense. Defense counsel did not cite section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) in his 

sentencing brief or at the sentencing hearing. Ultimately, the court 

sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years in prison for the 

corporal injury offense and struck the punishment for the enhancement.
4

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends remand for resentencing is required because the 

trial court failed to treat the low-term sentence as presumptive under section 

1170, subdivision (b)(6). We find no error. 

Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021–2022 Reg. 

Sess.) amended section 1170 and created a presumption that the trial court 

must impose a low-term sentence under certain circumstances, such as when 

a defendant’s childhood trauma was a contributing factor to the offense. 

(§ 1170, subd. (b)(6); Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5.1; People v. Gerson (2022) 

80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1095.) In such instances, the low term must be imposed 

“unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the 

mitigating circumstances that [its] imposition . . . would be contrary to the 

interests of justice.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6).) We presume trial courts know and 

apply governing law when sentencing defendants. (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 

58 Cal.4th 1354, 1390.) And we review sentencing decisions for abuse of 

discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.)

Defendant pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a person with 

whom he had a dating relationship and admitted inflicting great bodily injury 

on Doe. He also admitted his conduct fell within five aggravating factors, 

including (1) the “crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of 

great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, 

viciousness, or callousness”; (2) the “victim was particularly vulnerable”; 

(3) the “manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, 

sophistication, or professionalism”; (4) the “defendant took advantage of a 

position of trust or confidence to commit the offense”; and (5) the “defendant 

has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society.” 

(Rule 4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8), (a)(11), (b)(1).) In mitigation, it was 
5

undisputed he experienced childhood trauma — exposure to domestic 

violence. And the trial court concluded he was remorseful and “committed to 

not going that route in the future.”

Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court noted 

defendant’s conduct was “very disturbing. It’s brutal. It’s vicious. It was 

repeated.” The court acknowledged his remorse and commitment not to 

reoffend but noted this was “not just a single very brutal, very egregious 

assault, but one of many over an extended period of time.” The court also 

acknowledged his childhood trauma and “the fact that individuals who see 

and are exposed to domestic violence as children are probably at greater risk 

to be abusers when they become adults.” But it also observed that some 

similarly exposed children never commit domestic violence. Ultimately, the 

court struck the punishment for the enhancement in light of the mitigating 

circumstances. But with regard to the inflicting corporal injury offense, after 

“balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors” and “exercising [its] 

discretion,” the court imposed the middle term of three years.

Defendant contends the trial court erred “by failing to treat the lowterm sentence as the presumptive term, as required by section 1170(b)(6).” 

(Boldface omitted.) He fails to persuade. As he acknowledges — and the 

Attorney General concedes — it was undisputed he experienced childhood 

trauma and that it contributed to commission of the offense. Indeed, the 

court explicitly acknowledged defendant’s childhood trauma and cited it when 

striking the punishment for the enhancement. We presume the court was 

also aware of section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) which, at the time of sentencing, 
6

had been effective for more than 15 months. (People v. Gutierrez, supra, 

58 Cal.4th at p. 1390.) 

The trial court provided an extensive sentencing explanation and 

described how it balanced the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It 

acknowledged defendant’s childhood trauma and remorse but stressed the 

fact that this was “not just a single very brutal, very egregious assault, but 

one of many over an extended period of time.” Defendant estimated he had 

assaulted Doe approximately 50 times, and he admitted his conduct fell 

within five aggravating sentencing factors. (Rule 4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8), 

(a)(11), (b)(1).) In light of the record, we are confident the court applied 

section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) and found that “the aggravating 

circumstances outweigh[ed] the mitigating circumstances” such that 

imposition of the low-term sentence for the inflicting corporal injury offense 

“would be contrary to the interests of justice.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6).) No 

abuse of discretion appears. (People v. Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 847.) 

Having resolved this matter on the merits, we do not address defendant’s 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.
7

_________________________

RODRÍGUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

FUJISAKI, Acting P. J.

_________________________

PETROU, J.

A167815