P. v. Melles
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Aman Melles pleaded no contest to a charge of felony petty theft with a prior and, in exchange, received a promise that three prior felony convictions would be stricken for sentencing purposes and that he would be placed on probation. The court granted probation, but after defendant violated the terms of his probation, probation was revoked and defendant was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison. Defendant argues three sentencing errors on appeal: (1) that the aggravating factors cited by the trial court when it imposed the upper term were not supported by substantial evidence; (2) that the trial court breached the terms of the plea agreement when it cited the three prior felony convictions as factors in aggravation supporting imposition of the upper term; and (3) that the imposition of the upper term violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely).
On January 18, 2007, Court filed an opinion in which we rejected all of defendants arguments. The last of those arguments was rejected on the basis of Peoplev. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 (Black). Four days after Court filed it's opinion, the United States Supreme Court concluded in Cunningham v. California (2007) U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham) that Black had misapplied Blakely. Court granted rehearing to consider the impact of Cunningham on defendants last contention. With appropriate changes in our initial opinion, Court again conclude that defendants arguments do not establish error, and affirm the judgment of conviction.
Comments on P. v. Melles