P. v. Ruiz
Defendant James Randolph Ruiz was convicted after a jury trial of possession and transportation of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a), 11379, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11364). The jury acquitted defendant of possession of methamphetamine for sale. After a bench trial, the trial court found defendant had two prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.2, subd. (c)) and that defendant had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).[1] The trial court found defendant ineligible for Proposition 36 probation ( 1210.1) and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial courts denial of Proposition 36 probation violated the principles enunciated in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely), because the court relied upon facts not submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Ruiz