legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Speakes

P. v. Speakes
02:21:2007

P


P. v. Speakes


Filed 1/17/07  P. v. Speakes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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,


v.


ALLEN WAYNE SPEAKES,


            Defendant and Appellant.


      A113668


      (San Francisco County


       Super. Ct. No. 195127)



            Allen Wayne Speakes appeals a judgment convicting him of first-degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459.[1]  He contends the trial court erred in imposing the upper term sentence for this offense, because it improperly considered aggravating factors in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as articulated in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).  As discussed below, we find no prejudicial error and affirm.


Background


            On the evening of March 13, 2005, Paul Kangas and his 90-year-old mother were at home in their second-floor apartment.  While his mother slept, Kangas worked at his computer.  Hearing a noise, he got up to investigate.  Upon entering the kitchen he saw a stranger--defendant--taking coins out of a box and putting them into his pockets.  Kangas told defendant that he, Kangas, was a â€





Description Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing the upper term sentence for this offense, because it improperly considered aggravating factors in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as articulated in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). As discussed below, court find no prejudicial error and affirm.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale