P. v. Garcia
Filed 7/13/09 P. v. Garcia CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONARDO GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. | D051909 (Super. Ct. No. SCD206983) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Leonardo Garcia entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379) while possessing a firearm (Pen. Code,[1] 12022, subd. (c)) and evading a police officer by driving recklessly (Veh. Code, 2800.2.) Garcia also admitted a prison prior within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) and a prior strike conviction based on a prior juvenile adjudication ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). All remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The plea agreement recognized that Garcia could challenge the validity of his juvenile strike prior and provided an alternate sentence if it was later determined to be invalid. At sentencing the trial court declined to strike the prior juvenile adjudication and imposed a 10-year,
4-month prison sentence.
Garcia appeals contending the use of his prior juvenile adjudication as a strike under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) violates his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, and denies him equal protection. While this appeal has been pending our Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Nguyen (July 2, 2009, S154847) ___ Cal.4th ___ (2009 Cal. LEXIS 6020) (Nguyen). We will follow the direction of the Supreme Court and affirm the judgment. (Auto Equity Sales,Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.)
DISCUSSION
In Nguyen, supra, ___ Cal.4th ___ (2009 Cal. LEXIS 6020), the California Supreme Court considered the same basic challenge to the use of juvenile adjudications as strikes as are presented here. The court resolved those challenges, concluding that the use of adjudications as strike priors does not offend the federal constitution. The court determined that juvenile adjudications do not require the right to a jury trial in order to provide the degree of reliability for their use as prior convictions to enhance sentences for crimes. (Almendarez-Torres v. U.S. (1998) 523 U.S. 224.) In our view, the decision in Nguyen resolves the case before us. Applying the principles of Nguyen to the present case we find the use of Garcia's prior juvenile adjudication as a strike was lawful.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
