P. v. Stubbs
Filed 2/28/07 P. v. Stubbs CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY ALBERTO STUBBS, Defendant and Appellant. | G036602 (Super. Ct. No. 01NF2330) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Terrence Verson Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Lilia E. Garcia and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
In an earlier opinion (People v. Stubbs (Sept. 15, 2005, G032482) [nonpub. opn.]), we affirmed Tony Stubbss convictions on two counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)), but accepted the Attorney Generals concession and reversed a finding that defendant suffered a strike under the Three Strikes law for a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication for carjacking in 1996. The prosecutor elected not to retry defendant on the prior conviction allegation, and the trial court resentenced defendant on January 6, 2006. As it had at the original sentencing, the court imposed the upper nine-year term for carjacking on count one, citing several aggravating factors relating to defendant and the crime. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1) [defendant engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society]; rule 4.421(b)(2) [defendants prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness]; rule 4.421(a)(1) [crime involved threat of great bodily harm or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness].) The court added a consecutive 20-month term for count two.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by imposing an upper term of imprisonment on count one in violation of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. (See also United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220; Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466.) The United States Supreme Court has held Californias Determinate Sentencing Law violates a defendants Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a jury trial to the extent it permits a trial court to impose an upper term based on facts found by the court rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cunningham v. California (Jan. 22, 2007, No. 05-6551) 549 U.S. ___ [2007 WL 135687] (Cunningham);
People v. Calhoun (Jan. 29, 2007, S129896) ___ Cal.4th ___, ___ [2007 WL 210021, *5].)
The trial court imposed an upper term sentence on count one based on several aggravating sentencing factors that were not tried to and found by a jury. Based
on Cunningham, we reverse defendants sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.
ARONSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
FYBEL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
