P. v. Hylton
Jonathan Ray Hylton appeals from a four-year sentence imposed by the trial court following his guilty plea. In our original unpublished opinion, filed on May 26, 2006, we affirmed the judgment. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by defendant, vacated the judgment, and remanded the matter to this court for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham).[1]Cunningham concluded that Californias determinate sentencing law violates the Sixth Amendment because it allocates to judges sole authority to find facts permitting the imposition of an upper term sentence. (Id. 127 S.Ct. at p. 870.) We requested and received further briefing from the parties on the effect of Cunningham and two recent California Supreme Court decisions interpreting that case, People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II), and People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval). In light of those cases, Court vacate defendants sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.
Comments on P. v. Hylton