P. v. Tidwell
Filed 2/27/06 P. v. Tidwell CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.
RICHARD WAYNE TIDWELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
C049826
(Super. Ct. No. 04F09854)
|
Following evidence defendant Richard Wayne Tidwell shoplifted four leather coats and other clothing from a Target store, a jury found him guilty of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666). The trial court also found true allegations defendant had suffered two prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5.)
The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years on the theft conviction (noting that the crime involved planning), plus one year for each of the prior prison term enhancement allegations.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court violated the principles in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] when it imposed the middle, rather than lower, term sentence. According to defendant, because his sentencing decision depended on facts not submitted to the jury and was found true beyond a reasonable doubt, we must reverse and remand for resentencing under Blakely. The contention is frivolous.
First, defendant cites no case, and we are aware of none, which has applied the principles of Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. 296, to a challenge to imposition of the middle term. Blakely did not criticize imposition of the statutory middle term, i.e., the maximum sentence a judge may impose without making any additional findings. (Id. at pp. 303-304 [159 L.Ed.2d at p. 413]; see Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b) [trial courts â€
