 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Beaudoin1/4/2005
courts the decision whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentencing under our sentencing laws is not precluded by the decision in Blakely. In this state, every person who commits multiple crimes knows that he or she is risking consecutive sentencing. While such a person has the right to the exercise of the trial court's discretion, the person does not have a legal right to concurrent sentencing, and as the Supreme Court said in Blakely, "that makes all the difference insofar as judicial impingement upon the traditional role of the jury is concerned." (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. at p. ___ [159 L.Ed.2d at p. 417].)
Moreover, the imposition of consecutive sentences under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and (d), did not require the court to rely on any fact other than those that were proven at trial. Although subdivision (d) required the court to determine whether the crimes involved the same victim on separate occasions, in this case the jury determined that fact by convicting defendants each of two separate counts of rape by use of drugs.
Accordingly, the rule of Apprendi and Blakely does not apply to California's consecutive sentencing scheme.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
We concur:
SIMS, Acting P.J.
ROBIE, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|