P. v. Williams
Filed 6/26/07 P. v. Williams CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARRY GENE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | C052365 (Super. Ct. No. 05F663) |
Defendant Barry Gene Williams entered a negotiated no contest plea to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a)).[1]He also entered no contest pleas to misdemeanor possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, 11364) and driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.1, subd. (a)), and admitted he had served a prior prison term.
Defendant was sentenced to a state prison term of five years (the upper term of four years, plus a one-year prior prison term enhancement).
Defendant contends the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine the facts upon which the court relied to sentence him to the aggravated term, citing Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). The contention fails for reasons that follow.
Applying the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi) that other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be tried to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at p. 490.) For this purpose, the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that a court could impose based solely on facts reflected by a jurys verdict or admitted by the defendant. Thus, when a sentencing courts authority to impose an enhanced sentence depends upon additional fact findings, there is a right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the additional facts. (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. at pp. 303305.)
Accordingly, in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham), the United States Supreme Court held that by assign[ing] to the trial judge, not to the jury, authority to find the facts that expose a defendant to an elevated upper term sentence, Californias determinate sentencing law violates a defendants right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Cunningham, at p. ___ [166 L.Ed.2d at p. 864], overruling on this point People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, vacated in Black v. California (Feb. 20, 2007) ___ U.S. ___ [167 L.Ed.2d 36].)
As we have pointed out, an exception to this rule is that the trial court may increase the penalty for a crime based upon the defendants prior convictions, without having this aggravating factor submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490.) That is what occurred in this case. The court cited defendants prior criminal convictions -- he has three prior felony convictions, two prior prison commits, and again, an extensive record with felonies -- as the sole basis for imposing the upper term. Since defendants prior convictions were not subject to the rule of Apprendi and Blakely, and were legally sufficient to expose him to the upper term, there was no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
DAVIS , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] He also entered no contest pleas to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)), which conviction was subsequently stayed as a lesser included offense of transportation, and transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)), which conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (b)).
