P. v. Amaral
Defendant Jeffery Scott Amaral appeals after judgment from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. 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. Thereafter, counsel filed a supplemental brief contending the trial courts imposition of the upper term sentence violated the rule set forth in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham).
Court have reviewed the record on appeal. Court correct an error discovered in our review of the record and address defendants Blakely claim.
Comments on P. v. Amaral