P. v. Barnes
Filed 5/31/06 P. v. Barnes CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A111380
v. (Solano County
Super. Ct. No. 212094)
BLAIN E. BARNES,
Defendant and Appellant.
_______________________________________/
Blain E. Barnes appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of stalking while subject to a court order. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).) He contends the trial court sentenced him incorrectly. We disagree and will affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We need not provide a detailed statement of facts given the nature of the issue that has been raised. In essence, appellant repeatedly made threatening phone calls to his ex-girlfriend in violation of a court order.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with two counts of stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subds. (b) & (a).) The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to count one. In exchange, the other count was dismissed; additionally an unrelated pending case would be dismissed. Appellant could be considered for probation, and if probation were denied, a maximum sentence of four years could be imposed.
Subsequently, the court denied probation and sentenced appellant to an aggravated four-year term, citing aggravating factors from the probation report.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the aggravated sentence on his stalking conviction must be reversed under principles articulated in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 and its progeny. Our Supreme Court recently rejected this same argument in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238. Appellant concedes that Black is controlling in this court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Reardon, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Lawyers.
