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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.
JOSEPH DANNY PROPHET,
Defendant and Appellant.
C048945
(Sup.Ct. No. 00F07352)
On July 30, 2002, a jury convicted defendant Joseph Danny Prophet of five counts of forgery (Pen. Code, § 475, subd. (c))[1] and, in a trial by court, the court found true an allegation of a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
On September 12, 2003, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for six years eight months -- count 1, four years (the middle term of two years doubled because of the strike); and counts 2 to 5, consecutive effective terms of eight months each (one-third the middle term of two years each). Pursuant to section 296, subdivision (a)(1), the court ordered defendant to provide DNA samples.
Defendant appealed; however, he moved to abandon the appeal and on March 24, 2004, we dismissed the case.[2]
On October 18, 2004, defendant filed a pro se motion for modification of his sentence based upon defendant's belief that the three strikes law did â€
Description
On July 30, 2002, a jury convicted defendant of five counts of forgery and, in a trial by court, the court found true an allegation of a prior strike conviction. On September 12, 2003, the court sentenced defendant to state prison for six years eight months count 1, four years (the middle term of two years doubled because of the strike); and counts 2 to 5, consecutive effective terms of eight months each (one third the middle term of two years each). Pursuant to section 296, subdivision (a)(1), the court ordered defendant to provide DNA samples.
Defendant appealed; however, he moved to abandon the appeal and on March 24, 2004, court dismissed the case. On October 18, 2004, defendant filed a pro se motion for modification of his sentence based upon defendant's belief that the three strikes law did "not fit [his] case" and that the court should have imposed the lower base term.
On February 4, 2005, the court modified defendants sentence, but not in the manner defendant had requested. The court recognized that it had not, but should have, doubled each of the consecutive four month terms. Consequently, defendant's sentence was increased by two and one half years. The court also reimposed the DNA testing requirement pursuant to section 296.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the imposition of consecutive terms violated his rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403], and (2) the order that he provide a DNA sample violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. Court reject each contention.
