P. v. Davie
Defendant Todd Davie challenges the trial courts selection of the upper term sentence, claiming that it violated his right to jury trial under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. In our original opinion, we affirmed the trial court on the basis of our Supreme Courts decision in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 (Black I), that upper term sentencing on the basis of factors found true by the trial court, rather than a jury, did not violate the rule of Blakely and other high court decisions. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review our decision, and later remanded the case to this court. It did so for reconsideration in light of the decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 871], which rejected the rationale of Black I. While the case was pending in this court following remand, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II) and People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825. These cases further define the validity of upper term sentencing under the determinate sentencing law. Court invited the parties to submit letter briefs on the application of these 2007 decisions to the present appeal. They have done so, and we have considered their responses. Based on Black II, Court conclude that the upper term sentence imposed does not violate constitutional principles.
Comments on P. v. Davie