People v. Romero CA6

── People v. Romero CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 P. v. Romero CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H053210 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19CR000358) v. JAIME DEMECIO ROMERO, Defendant and Appellant. In re JAIME DEMECIO ROMERO, H053790 (Monterey County on Habeas Corpus. Super. Ct. No. 19CR000358) Defendant Jaime Demecio Romero, a life prisoner, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. A codefendant, Alberto Sanchez Cortez, was convicted of first degree murder and assault by a life prisoner.1 The trial court sentenced Romero to a term of 45 years to life plus 16 years. 1 A different panel of this court affirmed Sanchez Cortez’s convictions. (People v. Sanchez Cortez (Dec. 11, 2025, H052814) [nonpub. opn.].)  On appeal, Romero argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek to admit a purported suicide note written by Sanchez Cortez as a prior consistent statement.2 We disagree. As explained below, we need not address whether trial counsel’s failure to seek admission of the note as a prior consistent statement was deficient performance, because Romero cannot show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome had trial counsel sought and obtained its admission. We will affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural background On February 28, 2024, the Monterey County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Romero with first degree murder (Pen. Code,3 § 187, subd. (a); count 1). The amended information further alleged that Romero personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) in committing the offense charged in count 1 and that Romero had three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)) as well as three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). On May 31, 2024, a jury convicted Romero of second degree murder, finding that he did not act willfully, with premeditation and deliberation. The jury also found true the allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon in committing the murder. In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true the prior strike and prior serious felony allegations. 2 Romero has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (H053790) that this court ordered considered with the appeal. We have disposed of the habeas petition by separate order filed this day. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(2)(B).) 3 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2  After denying his motion for a new trial and his Romero4 motion, the trial court sentenced Romero to a term of 45 years to life (15 years to life, tripled due to his prior strikes) consecutive to a term of 16 years (one year for the personal use enhancement plus five years for each of his three prior serious felony convictions). The court stated that Romero’s sentence was to be “served consecutive to any other sentence [he] is currently serving.” Romero timely appealed. B. Facts 1. Prosecution case