P. v. Lee
Filed 12/22/09 P. v. Lee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRACY DONELL LEE, Defendant and Appellant. | H033231 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. CC649897 & CC757903) |
Defendant Tracy Donell Lee appeals from a judgment imposing a state prison sentence following his no contest pleas to criminal charges alleged in two separate informations. The sole issue on appeal is whether the use of juvenile adjudications to enhance a defendants sentence under Californias Three Strikes law violates the federal constitutions Sixth Amendment, given that juveniles do not enjoy a right to a jury trial in juvenile proceedings in this state. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In case number CC649897, defendant pleaded no contest to felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor resisting arrest. (Health & Saf. Code 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code 148, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted a prior prison term allegation, and waived jury on the truth of two strike allegations. (Pen. Code 667.5, subd. (b), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In case number CC757903, defendant pleaded no contest to failing to register as a sex offender within five days of his birthday. (Pen. Code 290, subd. (a)(1)(D).) He also admitted the first of the same two strikes and the same prior prison term also alleged in CC649897. The second strike was submitted for dismissal as part of the plea bargain. Following a court trial on the two strike allegations, the court rejected defendants constitutional challenge, on Apprendi[1]grounds, to the use of his prior juvenile adjudications as strikes, and found the strike allegations valid.
Defendant subsequently moved pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 for dismissal of his two strikes. In case number CC649897, the court dismissed the second alleged strike, but otherwise denied the Romero motion. In CC757903, the court dismissed the prior prison term pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, and the strike that had previously been submitted for dismissal as part of the plea bargain. The court imposed a total sentence of five years and four months in state prison for both cases.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The historical facts underlying defendants pleas are not necessary to the resolution of the single issue raised in this appeal and therefore will not be summarized.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues at length that his constitutional rights were violated by the use of his prior juvenile adjudication as a strike to enhance his current sentence. At the time he filed his opening brief, our Supreme Court had not yet resolved this issue, which was then pending before the Court. However, our Supreme Court has now determined that use of a prior juvenile adjudication to enhance a sentence under the Three Strikes law does not violate a criminal defendants Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. (People v. Nguyen (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1007.) As an intermediate appellate tribunal, we are bound by our Supreme Courts holding. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.) Therefore, we reject defendants claim.
CONCLUSION
We are bound by our Supreme Courts holding in People v. Nguyen that the use of a juvenile adjudication as a strike to enhance an adult defendants sentence under the Three Strikes law does not violate that defendants Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
____________________________________________
McAdams, J.
WE CONCUR:
________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
________________________________
Duffy, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
