P. v. Maciel
Defendant was convicted of theft after he took a television set from a residence in Hanford. On appeal, he argues that his sentence, which included the upper term for theft, violated the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. While Maciels appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S.[127 S.Ct. 856], holding that the imposition of upper terms under California law is governed by Blakely.
Court affirm. The sentence imposed in this case was consistent with Blakely and Cunningham. Alternatively, any error was harmless.
Comments on P. v. Maciel