P. v. Pimentel
Filed 6/14/06 P. v. Pimentel CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO ADOLFO PIMENTEL, Defendant and Appellant. | B186730 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA052362, LA046037, GA058654, PA050255) |
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shari Silver, Judge. Affirmed.
Marylou Hillberg, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from four judgments, after pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, on grounds that do not affect the validity of the pleas. Defendant and appellant Armando Adolfo Pimentel (defendant) contends that the sentences entered after his pleas in each of the four cases violate his federal constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. According to defendant, the trial court imposed the upper term of three years in state prison in each case, without having a jury decide the aggravating factors requisite to imposing those upper terms, in violation of the rule set down in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.
We hold that defendant forfeited his right to pursue this issue on appeal by failing to raise it in the trial court, and that, in any event, our Supreme Court has recently rejected defendant's argument in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238. We therefore affirm the judgments and sentences in each case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2004, defendant was arrested for stealing personal property from a Robinson's May department store, resulting in the filing of case number SA052362 (Robinson's May I case). On May 25, 2004, defendant was again arrested for stealing personal property from a Robinson's May department store, resulting in the filing of case number LA046037 (Robinson's May II case). On September 1, 2004, defendant was arrested for stealing a â€
