P. v. Lowry
This case is before us for a second time, following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham), which held that Californias determinate sentencing law (DSL) violates a defendants federal constitutional right to a jury trial by assigning to the trial judge, rather than the jury, the authority to make factual findings that subject a defendant to the possibility of an upper term sentence.
parties submitted their briefs and we have considered their submissions. As we shall explain, we find no constitutional error in the sentencing in this case. Court again affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Comments on P. v. Lowry