P. v. Aramburo

Filed 9/15/06 P. v. Aramburo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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,

CARLOS ARAMBURO,

Defendant and Appellant.

E038966

(Super.Ct.No. FWV025155)

O P I N I O N

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gerard S. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephen S. Buckley, 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, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Raymond M. Diguiseppe, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In an earlier appeal by defendant, we issued an unpublished opinion affirming his convictions and instructing the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing. (People v. Ituarte (May 5, 2005, E035609 [nonpub. opn.].) The court held the sentencing hearing, resentenced defendant, and defendant now appeals. He contends that the court erred in failing to stay, pursuant to Penal Code section 654,[1] the punishment of one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (§ 245, subd. (b).) He also contends that the imposition of an aggravated term on one count violated his constitutional rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403]. We reject these contentions, and affirm.

Summary of RELEVANT Facts[2]

On April 24, 2002, defendant and an associate, Jorge David Ituarte, approached Maria Ester Espinoza DeMoreno and Enrique Orosco in the parking lot of a Smart & Final store. DeMoreno and Orosco were placing groceries into their Dodge Durango. Defendant demanded the keys to the Durango. When Orosco did not turn over the keys immediately, defendant pulled a semiautomatic gun from his waistband and told Orosco, â€

Description	In an earlier appeal by defendant, court issued an unpublished opinion affirming his convictions and instructing the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing. The court held the sentencing hearing, and resentenced defendant. Defendant appeals. Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to stay, pursuant to Penal Code section 654, the punishment of one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. Appellant also contends that the imposition of an aggravated term on one count violated his constitutional rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. The court states that “under the multiple victim exception, multiple punishment for violent crimes against separate individuals is proper even when the crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct.” No error is found because there was at least one victim of the carjacking that was not a victim of the assault. Court reject Appellant’s contentions, and affirms.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.