P. v. Soto
Appellant, Alfredo Soto, challenges the sentence imposed on his guilty plea. According to appellant, he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain when the prosecutor argued for an upper term. Appellant asserts that there had been a previous agreement to recommend the midterm. Appellant further contends that his sentence to the upper term was contrary to his constitutional right to have any facts increasing his sentence submitted to a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt. As discussed below, appellant was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain. Further, since imposition of the upper term was based on appellants prior criminal history, appellant was not denied his right to a jury trial. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Soto