P. v. Estler
Filed 10/10/07 P. v. Estler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW MARK ESTLER, Defendant and Appellant. | C054632 (Super. Ct. No. 06-6439) |
Defendant Matthew Mark Estler pled no contest to threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 422)[1]in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charge of harassing by telephone ( 653m, subd. (a)) and the alleged enhancements for two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)), and a stipulated sentence of three years (the upper term) in state prison. Defendant waived a presentence probation report and was sentenced to three years in state prison in accordance with his plea agreement. Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and now appeals his sentence ( 1237.5).
On appeal, defendant claims under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 301-304 [159 L.Ed.2d 403, 412-414] (Blakely) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi), that the trial court erred in imposing the upper term without submitting the aggravating factors in support of the upper term to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants argument fails.
Plea bargaining is a judicially and legislatively recognized procedure (People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1216; 1192.5) that provides reciprocal benefits to the People and the defendant. (People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, 942.) When, as part of a plea agreement, the defendant specifies the sentence that is to be imposed, he necessarily admits that his conduct is sufficient to expose him to that punishment. (See generally People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295; People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1181-1182; People v. Thomas (1986) 41 Cal.3d 837, 842-843.) The decisions in Apprendi and Blakely do not preclude imposition of a sentence to which the defendant was exposed by his admissions. Blakely provides that Apprendi could be satisfied in a guilty plea context if the defendant either stipulates to the relevant facts or consents to judicial factfinding. (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 310.) But nothing in Blakely sets a particular level of formality as a constitutional requisite for a defendants stipulation or consent.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in imposing the sentence to which defendant agreed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P.J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
[1] Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
