P. v. Pugh
Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Pugh CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. DIMITA PUGH, Defendant and Appellant. | E038923 (Super. Ct. No. FSB041365) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas A. Fettel, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Dabney B. Finch, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Robert M. Foster and Erika Hiramatsu, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Dimita Pugh (appellant) alleges two errors: (1) that the sentence for one of her two felony convictions must be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654;[1] and (2) that under the United States Supreme Court 2004 decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely), the trial court improperly imposed the upper statutory term. We agree with appellant's first contention, but not her second.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 15, 2003, appellant attempted to pay for items she bought in
Wal-Mart with a check that had the name â€
