P. v. Adams
Filed 8/21/08 P. v. Adams CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMEL ALVIN ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | B201937 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BA319448 & GA069221) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia J. Titus, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher A. Darden for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran and Tannaz Kouhpainezhad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
Jamel Alvin Adams pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property, admitted a prior juvenile adjudication for robbery, and was sentenced to four years eight months in state prison. Adams appeals from the judgment, contending the use of his prior juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence is unconstitutional. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A neighbor saw some men enter the victims residence; police subsequently arrested Adams and two confederates. In Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BA319448, Adams was charged by amended information with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459 (count 1))[1]and receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a) (count 2)). As to count 1, it was further alleged Adams had suffered a prior strike conviction ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) arising out of a juvenile adjudication for robbery ( 211); and he had served two separate prison terms for a felony ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Adams pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
Following a traffic stop and parole search, officers recovered guns and narcotics from a truck driven by Adams. In Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA069221, Adams was charged by amended information with attempted possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1), 664 (count 1)) and carrying a loaded firearm ( 12031, subd. (a)(1) (count 2)). As to both counts, it was alleged Adams had suffered a prior strike conviction ( 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) arising out of a juvenile adjudication for robbery ( 211); and he had served two separate prison terms for a felony ( 667.5, subd. (b)). As to both counts, the information further alleged Adams committed the charged offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Adams pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
Adams waived his constitutional rights, entered negotiated pleas of no contest to receiving stolen property (count 2) and to attempted possession of a firearm by a felon (count 1) in case Nos. BA319448 and GA069221, respectively; and he admitted the prior robbery adjudicated in juvenile court. Adams was sentenced to four years eight months in state prison, consisting of four years for receiving stolen property (the two-year middle term doubled under the Three Strikes law), and eight months for attempted possession of a firearm by a felon (one-third the one-year middle term doubled under the Three Strikes law). The remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed as part of the negotiated pleas.
Although Adams admitted the prior adjudication knowing it would be used as a strike, as part of the negotiated plea, it was agreed Adams could challenge this aspect of his sentence on appeal.
DISCUSSION
According to Adams, because he was not afforded the right to a jury trial in connection with his prior juvenile adjudication, the trial court violated his constitutional rights by using this prior adjudication to double his sentence. Acknowledging review has been granted in People v.Nguyen (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1205, Adams nonetheless cites the case for the proposition a juvenile adjudication is not a prior conviction within the meaning of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435]. (People v. Nguyen, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th 1205, review granted Oct. 10, 2007, S154847.)
Pending a contrary decision by the California Supreme Court on this issue, we conclude, as we held in People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1075, a juvenile adjudication may be used as a strike to enhance an adult offenders sentence notwithstanding the absence of the right to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings. (See also People v. Buchanan (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 139, 149; People v. Superior Court (Andrades) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 817, 830-834; People v. Lee (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1312-1316; People v. Bowden (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 387, 391-394; People v. Fowler (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 581, 584-587.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
JACKSON, J.
I concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
ZELON, J., Dissenting
For the reasons stated in the dissent in People v. Del Rio (July 28, 2008, B203270) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2008 Cal.App. Lexis 1156], I respectfully dissent. I would vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
