P. v. Froemel
Defendant Rocky Devon Froemel was accused of assault with a deadly weapon against Shannon Capurro (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1); undesignated section references are to the Penal Code; count 1); making criminal threats against Capurro ( 422; count 2); attempting to prevent or dissuade Capurro from causing a crime to be prosecuted and assisting in its prosecution ( 136.1, subd. (b)(2); count 3); and attempting to prevent or dissuade Capurro from testifying ( 136.1, subd. (a)(2); count 4). In addition, he was accused of having four prior convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, serious felonies that counted as strikes ( 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12).
After we filed our first opinion in this matter, in which we rejected all of defendants contentions and affirmed the judgment, the United States Supreme Court decided that Californias Determinate Sentencing Law violated Apprendi and Blakely so far as it permitted imposition of the upper term based on any fact, other than a prior conviction, not tried to the jury and found true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham)). Upon defendants petition for writ of certiorari, the high court thereafter vacated our original opinion and remanded the matter to this court with directions to reconsider it in light of Cunningham. Court requested and received supplemental briefing from the parties on the issue. Concluding that any possible error in sentencing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Court once again affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Froemel