P. v. Murphy
Filed 9/14/06 P. v. Murphy CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC L. MURPHY, Defendant and Appellant. | E038997 (Super.Ct.No. FVA18786) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Jason R. Frye, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Heather F. Crawford, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The probation of defendant and appellant Eric Laurence Murphy (defendant) was terminated after the trial court found that defendant violated a probation condition. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the imposition of the upper term deprived him of his federal and state constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi). We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 31, 2002, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed an information charging defendant with petty theft with prior(s), in violation of Penal Code[1] sections 666 and 484, subdivision (a) (the â€
