P. v. Lopez
Filed 6/29/06 P. v. Lopez CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CESAR QUEIRO LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B185146 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA063373) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed.
John D. O'Loughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________
Cesar Queiro Lopez appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of one count of second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).[1] The trial court found to be true the allegation that appellant had suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). It sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years in state prison. Appellant contends that the trial court violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by depriving him of a jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts necessary to increase his sentence beyond the statutory maximum, as set forth in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).
We affirm.
FACTS
On April 14, 2005, at approximately 6:10 a.m., City of Long Beach police officers responded to a burglar alarm at the U-Haul truck rental facility at 1600 East Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Long Beach. The facility had a large, completely fenced yard containing two buildings and numerous parked rental trucks.
When officers arrived, appellant and codefendant, Jorge Gomez, were inside of the fenced facility, standing in front of the â€
