P. v. Estis

Filed 9/14/09 P. v. Estis CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Chad Edward Estis pleaded no contest as charged to robbery as a serious felony, conditioned on receiving a sentence of no more than six years if the alleged prior juvenile adjudication were valid and not to exceed three years if the prior were invalid or stricken. Over appellants objection under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi),[1] the court found the prior juvenile adjudication to be a true and valid strike. It sentenced appellant to a four-year state prison term (double the two-year lower term for robbery). Appellant challenges the use of the prior juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence because he had no right to a jury trial in that earlier juvenile proceeding. We affirm.

ANALYSIS

At the time of trial and briefing on appeal, this issue was pending before our Supreme Court in People v. Nguyen (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1007 (Nguyen).) Now decided, the court in Nguyen held that the absence of a constitutional or statutory right to jury trial under the juvenile law does not, under Apprendi, preclude the use of a prior juvenile adjudication of criminal misconduct to enhance the maximum sentence for a subsequent adult felony offense by the same person. (Id. at p. 1028.) The court first reasoned that the defendants claim did not come under the literal rule of Apprendi because that rule only requires that a jury in the current proceeding determine the existence of an alleged prior adjudication. (Id. at p. 1015.) Next, the court explained that prior juvenile adjudications substantially satisfy all the reasons why the court in Apprendi and related cases has concluded that prior convictions may be used to increase the maximum punishment for a subsequent adult offense without the need for jury findings in the later case. Like adult prior convictions, prior juvenile adjudications do not involve facts about the present offense that were withheld from a jury in the present case. Rather, they concern the defendants recidivism or status as a repeat offender, a basis on which courts acting without juries historically have imposed harsher sentences. Additionally, the prior criminal conduct comprising the recidivism was previously and reliably adjudicated in proceedings that included all the constitutional protections required for such proceedings. (Id. at p. 1021.) Thus, use of reliably obtained juvenile adjudications of past criminal conduct to enhance later adult criminal proceedings does not offend an adult defendants constitutional right to a jury trial in adult criminal proceedings. (Ibid.)

The Nguyen court summed it up this way: [I]f the [juvenile offender] was not deterred, and thus reoffends as an adult, this recidivism is a highly rational basis for enhancing the sentence for the adult offense. So long as an accused adult is accorded his or her right to a jury trial in the adultproceeding as to all facts that influence the maximum permissible sentence, no reason appears why a constitutionally reliable prior adjudication of criminality, obtained pursuant to all procedural guarantees constitutionally due to the offender in the prior proceedingspecifically including the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubtshould not also be among the facts available for that sentencing purpose. (Nguyen, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1023.)

In light of Nguyen, we affirm the judgment.

_________________________

Reardon, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

_________________________

Rivera, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] The high court in Apprendi ruled that due process, as well as the Sixth Amendment notice and jury trial guarantees, mandate that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at pp. 476-477, 490.)