P. v. Mena
Filed 5/8/06 P. v. Mena CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT SALVADOR MENA et al., Defendants and Appellants. | C049289 (Super. Ct. No. 03F08862) |
A jury convicted defendants Robert Salvador Mena and Felix Luis Colon, Jr., each of 10 counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c))[1] and found true various firearm enhancement allegations (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) as to each defendant.
As to each defendant, the court imposed consecutive terms for the robbery and enhancements, resulting in Mena receiving 40 years 8 months and Colon receiving 52 years.
Relying on Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403], both defendants contend the trial court violated their right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, the aggravating factors it used in imposing consecutive terms. Additionally, both defendants claim the trial court erred in ordering them to each pay a $100 crime prevention fee pursuant to section 1202.5. Finally, defendant Mena contends the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect imposition of a 10-year, rather than a 16-year, firearm use enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d).
DISCUSSION
I
Defendants recognize that the California Supreme Court rejected their Blakely contention in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 1244, 1262, but state they are making the argument to preserve the issue for federal review. Pursuant to Black, we reject the contention. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
II
Purportedly pursuant to section 1202.5, the trial court imposed a $100 crime prevention fee ($10 per count) on each defendant. Defendants contend the fee must be reduced to $10 each because section 1202.5 permits only imposition of $10 per case, not $10 per count. We, like the People, agree with defendants.
Section 1202.5 provides that a crime prevention fee of $10 shall be imposed â€
