P. v. Boykin
Filed 9/11/06 P. v. Boykin CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEON D. BOYKIN, Defendant and Appellant. | B183725 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA059256) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Gary J. Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed.
Marta. I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Marc. E. Turchin and Jack Newman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Leon D. Boykin appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of felony cocaine possession. On appeal he contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress illegally seized evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) and imposed an upper-term sentence based on facts neither found true by the jury nor admitted by him in violation of his right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The evidence presented at the suppression hearing was that while in his patrol car, Long Beach Police Officer Eduardo Reyes and his partner received a report of possible narcotics activity in a nearby alley. His partner ran a warrant check on a Honda the two officers saw leaving the alley. The check showed an outstanding warrant for â€
