P. v. Tith
Filed 1/10/07 P. v. Tith CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICKY TITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
A114094
(SonomaCounty Super. Ct. No. SCR481092)
|
Ricky Tith (Tith) appeals from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)).[1] He contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the imposition of the upper term of sentence, which was based on aggravating factors neither found by a jury nor admitted by his plea. (See Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).) We affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A first amended complaint (complaint) charged Tith with felony attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), attempted carjacking (§§ 664/215, subd. (a)), and assault with a deadly weapon and with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). As to the attempted murder charge, the complaint alleged the personal use of a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon, the complaint alleged the personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
A. Facts
We summarize the facts as described in the felony presentence report prepared by the Sonoma County probation office.
On January 29, 2006, victim Luciano drove his truck to the Days Inn Motel where his girlfriend worked. As he got out of the truck, Luciano noticed a person (whom he later identified as appellant Tith) approaching. Tith instructed Luciano, â€
