Fear Not Law Articles: P.v . Diblasi

P.v . Diblasi

Filed 1/17/07 P.v . Diblasi 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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,

FRANCIS DIBLASI,

Defendant and Appellant.

E038733

(Super.Ct.No. INF050046)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard A. Erwood, Judge. Affirmed.

Janice R. Mazur, 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, Robert M. Foster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Peter Quon, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Francis DiBlasi of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)^{^[1]} and second degree burglary (§ 459). The jury also found true that defendant had a previous felony conviction in 1977, within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The court sentenced defendant to a total term of imprisonment of 10 years, which was composed of the upper term of five years in state prison on the robbery conviction, doubled to 10 years under the â€

Description	A jury convicted defendant of robbery (Pen. Code, S 211) and second degree burglary (S 459). The jury also found true that defendant had a previous felony conviction in 1977, within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The court sentenced defendant to a total term of imprisonment of 10 years, which was composed of the upper term of five years in state prison on the robbery conviction, doubled to 10 years under the "Three Strikes" law. The court also imposed the upper term of three years on the burglary conviction, but stayed it pursuant to section 654. On appeal, defendant contends that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was the named person in the court documents presented as proof of his previous conviction; and 2) the court erred in imposing the upper terms, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). Court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.