P. v. Ocampo

Filed 9/5/06 P. v. Ocampo CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ANTHONY OCAMPO,

Defendant and Appellant.

A113251

(Sonoma County

Super. Ct. No. SCR-475411)

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Counts II and III filed against him, evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and possession of forged checks (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (a)), respectively.[1] The trial court subsequently imposed a state prison term of three years and eight months, consisting of the upper term on Count II and a consecutive term on Count III. In this appeal defendant claims that the trial court erred by imposing upper and consecutive terms based upon aggravating factors that he neither admitted as part of his plea nor were found by the jury, in violation of his rights to a jury trial and finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). We conclude that the imposition of upper and consecutive terms did not violate Blakely, and therefore affirm the judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[2]

In support of its decision to impose upper and consecutive sentences, the court noted the mitigating circumstances that defendant â€

Description	Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to evading a peace officer, and possession of forged checks respectively. The trial court subsequently imposed a state prison term of three years and eight months, consisting of the upper term on Count II and a consecutive term on Count III. In this appeal defendant claims that the trial court erred by imposing upper and consecutive terms based upon aggravating factors that defendant neither admitted as part of his plea nor were found by the jury, in violation of his rights to a jury trial and finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court conclude that the imposition of upper and consecutive terms did not violate Blakely, and therefore affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.