Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Crouch

P. v. Crouch

Filed 2/21/07 P. v. Crouch CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ERIK JAMES RICHARD CROUCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

A113345

(Marin County

Super. Ct. No. SC130399A)

INTRODUCTION

Erik James Richard Crouch appeals from the judgment of the Marin County Superior Court revoking his probation and imposing an aggravated prison sentence upon finding that he had violated the terms of his probation for corporal injury on a spouse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^{^[1]}

On August 8, 2003, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) The court placed appellant on probation for five years on the condition that he serve one year in county jail.

On October 26, 2005, a petition to revoke probation was filed, alleging that appellant had assaulted the same victim on August 14, 2005. On March 3, 2006, over appellant's objection under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely), the court refused to reinstate probation and sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of four years in state prison, citing his substantial criminal history as the primary reason for the sentence.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that imposition of the upper term violates his federal constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial as recognized in Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. 296.) He argues the trial court violated Blakely and committed constitutional error by imposing the upper term based on an aggravating factor that was not supported by jury findings or admitted by him.

A. The law

The controlling principle was announced by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi), which states: â€

Description	Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Marin County Superior Court revoking his probation and imposing an aggravated prison sentence upon finding that he had violated the terms of his probation for corporal injury on a spouse. (Pen. Code, S 273.5, subd. (a).) Court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.