P. v. Sprankle
Defendant Larry John Sprankle was found guilty of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a))[1]and of grand theft of access card account information ( 484e, subd. (d)). He was sentenced to the upper term for receiving stolen property.On appeal, he contended that (1) the trial court erred because it did not, sua sponte, instruct the jury on mistake of fact; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution and fines; and (3) the two one-year enhancements imposed for prior prison terms must be stricken because the record does not show that defendant voluntarily and intelligently admitted those prior terms. In a supplemental brief, Sprankle also arguedthat the courts imposition of the upper term for receiving stolen property, without any finding by the jury of the aggravating factors on which this term was based, violates Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531] (Blakely).
In a previous opinion, Court agreed that the trial courts restitutionary order must be stricken. In addition, we reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the sentence imposed for receiving stolen property, in view of Blakely. In all other respects, Court affirmed the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Sprankle