P. v. Valdez
Filed 5/8/06 P. v. Valdez C4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | E036829 (Super.Ct.No. FWV020455) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Frederick A. Mandabach, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Kimberly J. Grove, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Howard C. Cohen for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis and Erika Hiramatsu, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Luis Valdez contends on appeal that (1) the trial court erred by imposing concurrent sentences on counts 1 (second degree commercial burglary) and 7 (forcible oral copulation), and that the sentence for count 1 should have been stayed according to Penal Code[1] sections 654 and 667.61, subdivision (f); and (2) imposition of consecutive terms on counts 8 through 15 violated his right to a jury trial. We agree that the concurrent sentence imposed for count 1 must be stayed under section 667.61, subdivision (f). We find no other error.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The statement of facts is taken from an earlier appeal in this matter, No. E032651:
â€
