Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD215003 David J. Danielson, Judge.
HUFFMAN, J.
Gustavo Ivan Nunez entered into a plea agreement, under the terms of which he pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a serious/violent felony prior conviction (strike prior) within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivisions (b) through (i). The agreement included an eight-year "lid" on the potential sentence. Nunez made a motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior on the grounds that it arose from a juvenile adjudication and should not be treated as a strike. The court denied the motion to strike the prior conviction and sentenced Nunez to a prison term of eight years.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Nunez appeals, challenging the sentence imposed. He contends a juvenile adjudication should not qualify as a strike because as a juvenile he was not entitled to a jury trial in the juvenile court. The issue presented in this appeal has been resolved in California by a decision of our Supreme Court. Accordingly, we will reject Nunez's contention and affirm the judgment.
Since the question presented by this appeal is purely a question of law, we will omit the usual statement of facts.
DISCUSSION
In People v. Nguyen (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1007 (Nguyen), the court addressed the question of whether a juvenile adjudication could be used as a strike under California's Three Strikes Law. The issue presented to the court in Nguyen was whether juvenile adjudications could constitutionally be used as strikes given that juveniles are not entitled to a jury trial. Our Supreme Court held that such adjudications could be used as strikes and that such use did not violate federal constitutional principles. Nunez recognizes this court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. (Auto-Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Nunez contends, however that Nguyen was wrongly decided and he has continued to challenge the use of his juvenile adjudication as a strike in order to preserve any right he might have to address the issue on review of his sentence by a federal court. Nunez does not contend that the trial court otherwise abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike the prior conviction under section 1385 or People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
As Nunez correctly observes we must follow the holding in Nguyen, supra, 46 Cal.4th 1007. Any challenges to the validity of the Nguyen decision must be addressed to the Supreme Court or to the federal courts respectively. We have no authority to revisit the question of the applicability of the Three Strikes Law to qualified juvenile adjudications. Accordingly, we will affirm the trial court's decision.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J.AARON, J.