P. v. Jacobo
Filed 8/15/06 P. v. Jacobo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Sutter)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENE JACOBO, Defendant and Appellant. |
C051546
(Super. Ct. No. CRF052031)
|
Defendant Rene Jacobo entered a negotiated plea of guilty to evading a peace officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and admitted having four prior DUI convictions (Veh. Code, § 23550). In exchange, seven remaining counts were dismissed. He was sentenced to state prison for three years (the upper term) for evading a peace officer and a concurrent three years (the upper term) for the DUI with priors, awarded 55 days of custody credit and 26 days of good conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4),[1] a parole revocation fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Although not raised by either defense appellate counsel or defendant and without first requesting supplemental briefing, we consider whether the imposition of the upper term based on aggravating factors not found by a jury violated the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely).
The trial court cited three reasons for imposing the upper term: (1) â€
