P. v. Shupp
Defendant Sean David Shupp was convicted of possessing a controlled substance in prison and sentenced to the four-year upper term, plus four 1-year enhancements for prior prison terms. He argues that: (1) the trial court erred when it refused to relieve retained counsel and appoint successor counsel; (2) the retained counsel was ineffective because she failed to object to imposition of the upper term in the absence of any statement of reasons; and (3) the imposition of the upper term contravened the United States Supreme Courts decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).
Court affirm. Court previously issued an opinion in this appeal on November 1, 2006. The present opinion follows a remand from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration of issue (3), the Blakely issue, in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Court reiterate our previous discussion of issues (1) and (2). On issue (3), our Supreme Courts recent application of Cunningham in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II) is dispositive and requires affirmance.
Comments on P. v. Shupp