 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Baker4/29/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
As charged, appellant William James Baker pled guilty to forging a prescription for drugs (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4324, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two state prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of eight years in state prison.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion (1) in imposing the aggravated term and (2) in declining to strike the strike. We reject these contentions and affirm.
DISCUSSION
A. Aggravated Term
The record reflects that the trial court stated the following reasons for imposing the aggravated term: "The court finds the following to be circumstances in aggravation: [ ] That the defendant has engaged in violent conduct in the past which indicates that he is a danger to society. [ ] The defendant's prior convictions as an adult are numerous. [ ] The defendant has served an additional prior prison term that is not alleged as an enhancement in this case. [ ] The defendant was on parole when the crime was committed. [ ] And his prior performance on probation and parole has been unsatisfactory. [ ] And the court finds that there are no circumstances in mitigation in the case. [ ] The circumstances in aggravation clearly outweigh the circumstances in mitigation, both in number and in weight, and I therefore elect to impose the upper term."
Appellant does not challenge the existence of these aggravating factors in this case nor does he dispute that these factors are expressly enumerated as "circumstances in aggravation" under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421 (formerly rule 421). He argues, however, that because the aggravating factors relate solely to the defendant as opposed to the crime itself, it was improper to impose the aggravated term.
It has been repeatedly been held that " single factor or circumstance in aggravation is sufficient to justify imposition of the upper term. [Citations.]" (People v. Piceno (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1353, 1360; People v. Thornton (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 72, 77; People v. Dreas (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 623, 636.) Here, we have five factors in aggravation and no factors in mitigation. Further, contrary to appellant's contention, there is no requirement that one of the aggravating factors relate to the commission of the crime in order to impose the aggravated term. In Piceno, cited by appellant as his sole authority, the contention was never raised much less ruled upon by the court. Piceno simply held that defendant's minor juvenile record as the sole factor in aggravation was insufficient under the facts presented to support imposition of the aggravated term. (People v. Piceno, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 1360.)
In the absence of any authority or reason supporting appellant's contention, it is hereby rejected.
B. Strike Prior
Appellant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's request to strike the strike prior which appellant had admitted as true.
We review the trial court's decision whether or not to strike a strike allegation pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a) under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162.) Only if the trial court's decision " `falls outsi
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|