P. v. Poliquin
Filed 4/3/08 P. v. Poliquin CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT PAUL POLIQUIN, Defendant and Appellant. | C056486 Super. Ct. Nos. CM025657 CM027079 |
As part of a bargain leading to dismissal of other charges, defendant Robert Paul Poliquin pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine on or about August 19, 2006, and admitted serving a prior prison term. (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) On March 7, 2007, he was put on Proposition 36 probation.
In April and May 2007, Defendant admitted that he violated probation as alleged in two separate petitions. On June 28, 2007, in a new case, defendant pleaded no contest to a charge of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) on June 6, 2007, in exchange for dismissal of other counts.
On July 26, 2007, the trial court imposed sentence on both matters. The court imposed the upper term of three years for taking the vehicle, imposed a consecutive one-third sentence of eight months on the drug charge, and added one year for the prison term, resulting in a sentence of four years and eight months. The trial court found as follows:
Circumstances in aggravation include that the crime involved great monetary value in stealing of the car. Defendants priors are numerous. The defendant has served at least one prior prison term. The defendant was on [parole] when the offense occurred. And the prior performance on probation and [parole] was unsatisfactory. The court finds that there are no circumstances in mitigation.
Defendant timely filed this appeal.
In the trial court defendant did not contest the facts underlying the trial courts reasons, and the probation report reflects that defendant has four felony and six misdemeanor convictions, and numerous probation violations.
On appeal, defendant contends the upper term sentence violates his Sixth Amendment rights.
On July 19, 2007, before the date of sentencing in this case, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black) and People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval). Defendant concedes that Black and Sandoval control this case as far as we are concerned, but he wishes to preserve the issues for further review.
We agree we are bound to follow Black and Sandoval. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Because the trial court in part relied on defendants prior criminal convictions, no Sixth Amendment violation took place. (Black, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 813-816, 818-820.)
DISPOSITON
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , J.
I concur:
DAVIS, Acting P.J.
I concur in the result:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
