Court Opinion

ID: 9386261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 20:02:55.77721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:04.975635
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/11/23 P. v. Germono CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H049779
                                                                    (Santa Clara County
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 Super. Ct. Nos. C1902145
                                                                     C1910459)
           v.

 MICHAEL ODELL GERMONO,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Michael Odell Germono appeals from judgments entered after
conviction by no contest pleas. Appointed counsel for Germono has filed a brief asking
this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Germono was advised of the right to
file a supplemental brief but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to Germono, we affirm the judgments.
                        I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         A. Docket No. C1902145
         On January 27, 2019, a police officer pulled Germono over for a Vehicle Code
violation. As the officer approached Germono’s car, he smelled a strong odor of burnt
cannabis emanating from it. When searching Germono and his car, the officer found,
among other things, two digital scales, a 9mm semiautomatic handgun with 13 rounds in
its magazine, cocaine inside a pill container, an open container of cannabis, a gold ring,
and a driver’s license belonging to someone other than Germono.
       On January 29, 2020, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an
information charging Germono with unlawful possession of controlled substances while
armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1 subd. (a); count 1),
possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1);1 count 2), carrying a
concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and carrying a loaded
firearm on his person or in a vehicle when having been convicted of a felony (§ 25850,
subd. (a); count 4). The information further alleged that Germono had a strike prior
(§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12).
       On May 20, 2021, Germono’s defense counsel requested an order for appointment
of a doctor to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of Germono. The trial court granted that
request.
       On December 15, 2021, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Germono pleaded
no contest to count 1 and admitted the strike prior allegation on condition that the
remaining counts would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to serve six years in
prison concurrently with any sentence imposed in docket No. C1910459 (based on a
stipulation that the offenses involved the same set of operative facts).
       On January 6, 2022, Germono withdrew his admission to the strike prior
allegation, and that allegation was designated for dismissal at Germono’s impending
sentencing.
       On January 25, 2022, the trial court sentenced Germono on count 1 to the midterm
of three years in prison, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in docket
No. C1910459. The court awarded credits for time served. The court dismissed counts
2, 3, and 4 and the strike prior allegation.

       1   Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                                                  2
       Germono filed a notice of appeal.
       B. Case No. C19104592
       During the early morning of April 1, 2019, 15-year-old Dat N. (Dat) entered a 7-
Eleven store and threatened to shoot the clerk if he did not give Dat the money in the cash
register. The clerk threw about $170 to $200 onto the counter. Dat grabbed the money,
left the store, and entered the front passenger seat of a vehicle. About an hour later, Dat
entered another 7-Eleven store, pointed a firearm at the clerk, and threatened to shoot the
clerk if he did not give Dat money. The clerk opened the cash register, and Dat grabbed
an unknown amount of money. Dat ran out of the store and entered a waiting vehicle.
Less than an hour later, Dat walked into another 7-Eleven store, pointed a handgun at the
clerk, and demanded money or he would shoot. The clerk opened the register and gave
Dat about $380. Dat ran out of the store.
       Late at night on April 2, 2019, Dat entered a 7-Eleven store, pointed a handgun at
the clerk, and demanded money. The clerk placed the cash register drawer on the
counter. Dat took an unknown amount of money and ran out of the store and into a
waiting vehicle.
       On April 4, 2019, police took Dat into custody. Dat’s cell phone records placed
him at the scene of all the robberies, and Germono’s phone number was one that Dat
called frequently. Additionally, Germono’s cell phone records corroborated that he was
with Dat during the robberies.
       On May 17, 2019, police took Germono into custody. Three days later, police
searched his residence and found an unloaded .380 semiautomatic pistol and a loaded

       2  Before the court held a preliminary hearing in docket No. C1910459, that matter
was consolidated with a previously filed matter, docket No. C1910233. Upon
consolidation, the district attorney filed a first amended felony complaint in C1910459
that realleged certain charges from C1910233 and added other counts. After the
preliminary hearing, the district attorney filed an information bearing only the docket No.
C1910459, and subsequent proceedings occurred under only that docket number.
                                                 3
9mm semiautomatic pistol that belonged to the San Jose Police Department and had been
stolen from an officer’s home in 2018.
       On February 5, 2020, the district attorney filed an information charging Germono
with five counts of second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c); counts 1, 3, & 5–7), two
counts of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 212.5, subd. (c); counts 2 & 4), two
counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 8 & 9), and
possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 10). The
information further alleged that Germono had a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i),
1170.12) and a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).
       On May 20, 2021, Germono’s defense counsel requested an order for appointment
of a doctor to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of Germono. The trial court granted that
request.
       On December 15, 2021, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Germono pleaded
no contest to counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 and admitted the strike prior on condition that the
remaining counts and allegation would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to a 10-
year prison term. The agreement included a concurrent sentence in docket No.
C1902145.
       On January 25, 2022, the trial court sentenced Germono on count 1 to the lower
term of four years and consecutive terms of two years for each of counts 3, 5, and 6, for a
total of 10 years in state prison. The court awarded credits for time served on count 1 and
ordered Germono to pay $450 in victim restitution and a $300 restitution fine. The court
dismissed the remaining counts and the serious felony prior conviction allegation.
       Germono filed a notice of appeal and an amended notice of appeal.
                                    II. DISCUSSION
       We have reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.
Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we

                                                 4
find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Germono. We
therefore affirm the judgments.
                                  III. DISPOSITION
      The judgments are affirmed.

                                              5
                            ______________________________________
                                       Danner, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________
Greenwood, P.J.

____________________________________
Bromberg, J.

H049779
People v. Germono