P. v. Stuart
Filed 7/18/06 P. v. Stuart CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL DOUGLAS STUART, Defendant and Appellant. |
C051233
(Super. Ct. No. 03F4908)
|
Defendant Carl Douglas Stuart pled guilty to transporting methamphetamine and driving on a suspended license, and he admitted having two prior narcotics convictions. One of the prior convictions was dismissed in the interest of justice, and he was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of four years for transportation of methamphetamine, plus three years for the prior drug conviction.
Defendant appealed, asserting that imposition of the upper term violated the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 302-305 [159 L.Ed.2d 403, 413-414] (hereafter Blakely), and that the trial court erred by failing to consider as mitigating factors defendant's drug addiction and health problems. This court rejected the claim of Blakely error, but vacated the sentence and remanded for consideration of those mitigating factors.
On resentencing, the trial court found that the circumstances in aggravation outweighed any mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the court reimposed the upper term of four years for transportation of methamphetamine, plus three years for the prior drug conviction.
Defendant appeals again, reiterating his contention that imposition of the upper term violates the holding in Blakely.
DISCUSSION
Defendant recognizes that his claim of Blakely error must fail as a result of the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, 1244, 1254-1256 (hereafter Black); Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Thus, he raises the contention solely â€
