P. v. Washington

Filed 3/6/06 P. v. Washington 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)

----

A jury convicted defendant Edwin Ruben Washington of 13 counts of molesting his stepdaughter (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and nine counts of molesting her friend (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court also found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction.

A recitation of the facts underlying defendant's convictions is unnecessary to resolve the issue raised on appeal.

Defendant received an aggregate sentence of 43 years, eight months. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court sentenced him to a principal term of 12 years on count 2, and ordered that defendant's sentences for his convictions on counts 3 through 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22 be served consecutively, based on its finding the crimes were committed on different dates, or that they were otherwise independent of each other.

Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violated the principles of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). He does not challenge the court's stated reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.

The California Supreme Court held in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 (Black), that Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, and Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. 296, do not invalidate California's method of imposing consecutive sentences. (Black, supra, at pp. 1244, 1254, 1262-1264.)

Defendant acknowledges that this court is obligated to follow the holding in Black, supra, 35 Cal.4th 1238. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Defendant says he raises the contention for the sole purpose of preserving his right to eventual federal review.

Accordingly, we reject defendant's claim of sentencing error.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SIMS , Acting P.J.

We concur:

RAYE , J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego rebate fraud lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And San Diego Lawyers Directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )