From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Faddis

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 29, 2008
C056170 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)

Opinion

C056170

9-29-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERESA FADDIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published


In February 2007, defendant Teresa Faddis was charged in case No. 06F5110 (the main case) with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and possession of a hypodermic needle. The information also alleged she served four prior prison terms.

Defendant pled no contest to all charges in the main case except that of being under the influence and admitted violating her probation in case No. 04F4863 (the earlier case). The remaining charge and the allegations of prior prison terms were dismissed on the prosecutors own motion along with an unrelated charge for failing to appear.

In May 2007, defendant was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison in the main case. The court also ordered appellant to pay various fines and fees, including a $200 restitution fine and $200 parole revocation fine.

At the same hearing, the court revoked defendants probation in the earlier case and sentenced her to two years eight months in state prison, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in the main case. The court further affirmed its prior order for a $200 restitution fine and added a $200 parole revocation fine.

Defendants belated request for a certificate of probable cause was denied; she nevertheless appeals her conviction.

Defendant claims the trial court violated her federal constitutional rights to jury trial and due process when it sentenced her to the upper term of three years in the main case, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 , Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 , and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 . We disagree.

At sentencing, the trial court imposed the upper term based on defendants "prior record," which spans over 20 years with numerous prior convictions, including three parole violations and three probation violations.

Applying Cunningham, our Supreme Court held in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 816, that "imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendants constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendants record of prior convictions."

Here, the record discloses at least one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance that was justified based upon defendants record, her numerous prior convictions. (See People v. Searle (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1091, 1098 [three prior convictions deemed numerous]; see also People v. Black, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 818 [citing Searle with approval on this point and concluding five prior convictions were numerous]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) [defining an aggravating circumstance as including the circumstance of numerous prior convictions].) Consequently, under Black, the trial judges imposition of the upper term did not violate defendants constitutional right to jury trial (and related due process rights) under Apprendi/Blakely/Cunningham.

As defendant acknowledges in her opening brief, although she may disagree with the reasoning of Black, we are bound by it. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)

Defendant also contends the abstract of judgment wrongly reflects imposition of a Penal Code section 1202.4 restitution fine in the earlier case. In support of her argument, defendant claims the reporters transcript does not show the court ordered the fine. Alternatively, defendant argues, if the fine was ordered, it is an impermissible "second fine" under Penal Code section 1202.4 and People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 822-823, or the fine is in error because "the probation restitution fine may have been paid and satisfied . . . . " None of defendants claims have merit.

After reviewing the record, we find there is no evidence defendant paid any money toward the fine imposed in the earlier case and the abstract of judgment correctly reflects both restitution fines, ordered in April 2005 and May 2007 respectively.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

MORRISON, Acting P.J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Faddis

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 29, 2008
C056170 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Faddis

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERESA FADDIS, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Sep 29, 2008

Citations

C056170 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)