P. v. Williams
Filed 2/21/06 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | C048096
(Super. Ct. No. 04F00003)
|
A jury convicted defendant James Edward Williams of robbery
(Pen. Code, § 211) and found true an allegation that he had personally used a firearm during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years for the robbery conviction, to which it added 10 years for the firearm use enhancement.[1]
On appeal, defendant argues that his upper term consecutive sentence is unconstitutional because he never had a jury trial with respect to the facts used to impose it, under the principles set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi), Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 302-304 [159 L.Ed.2d 403, 413-414] (Blakely), and United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220, 233 [160 L.Ed.2d 621, 643] (Booker).
In People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, filed subsequent to defendant's opening brief, the Supreme Court of California held â€
