Court Opinion

ID: 9379938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 18:02:24.661605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:54.475624
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/16/23 P. v. Tromp CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079993

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. SWF1401307)

 LAWRENCE HENRY TROMP,                                                   OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark Mandio, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                         INTRODUCTION

       A jury found defendant and appellant Lawrence Henry Tromp guilty of assault

with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1.) The jury also found

that he personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon, a knife, during the assault (former

§§ 667, 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)), and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury

(§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)).2 In a bifurcated trial, a trial court found

defendant had a prior conviction for attempted robbery, which was both a prior strike and

a prior serious felony conviction. (former § 667, subds. (a), (c)-(e)(1).) (Tromp, supra,

E070705.) The court sentenced defendant to 14 years in state prison, consisting of the

middle term of three years, doubled to six years based on the prior strike, plus five years

for the prior serious felony conviction, and three years for the great bodily injury

enhancement. The court awarded him a total of 1,688 days of credit for time served and

ordered him to pay various fines and fees.

       Defendant appealed, and this court conditionally reversed the judgment and

remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a mental health diversion

eligibility hearing pursuant to section 1001.36, exercise its discretion whether to impose

the five-year term on defendant’s prior serious felony conviction (former §§ 667,

       1   All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
       2 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior opinion. (People
v. Tromp (Sept. 23, 2019, E070705) [nonpub. opn.] (Tromp); Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459;
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).)
                                              2
subd. (a), 1385), and award two additional days of presentence custody credits. (Tromp,

supra, E070705.)

       On August 29, 2022, the trial court held a hearing, and defense counsel informed

the court that defendant had elected not to pursue a grant of mental health diversion. The

court then awarded defendant two additional days of presentence credit pursuant to this

court’s direction. The court also exercised its discretion not to impose the five-year

enhancement on the prior serious felony conviction (former §§ 667, subd. (a), 1385) and

ordered the rest of the sentence to remain the same. Thus, the sentence imposed was nine

years in state prison. As a result, defendant had enough credit for time served, and the

court ordered him to be released forthwith.

       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.

                              FACTUAL BACKGROUND3

       On April 24, 2014, defendant, suddenly and without provocation, stabbed the

victim in the chest while he, the victim, and the victim’s mother were waiting at a bus

stop in Hemet. After police apprehended defendant, an officer heard him say, “Why did I

stab him? I shouldn’t have stabbed him.” The victim was hospitalized and later

recovered from his stab wound. (Tromp, supra, E070705.)

       3This brief factual summary is taken from our prior unpublished opinion for
background purposes only since we find the facts unnecessary to any potential issues on
appeal.
                                              3
                                      DISCUSSION

       Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court had to restate the fine

and fee amounts when it pronounced judgment a second time, even in the absence of an

objection by defense counsel. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a

review of the entire record.

       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done.

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                FIELDS
                                                                                             J.
We concur:

MILLER
                Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                           J.

                                              4