From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sandoval

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Mar 20, 2008
No. B198797 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ENRIQUE SANDOVAL, Defendant and Appellant. B198797 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division March 20, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. KA076548, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge.

Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Klein, P. J.

Defendant and appellant, Richard Enrique Sandoval, appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, by jury trial, for assault with a deadly weapon, with prior serious felony conviction findings (Pen. Code, §§ 245, 667, subd. (a)-(i)). Sentenced to state prison for 30 years to life, he claims there was sentencing error.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

BACKGROUND

Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206, we find the evidence established the following.

Sandoval and M.P. were boyfriend and girlfriend. Sandoval was attacked and stabbed outside M.P.’s condominium complex. M.P. believed the attack might have been committed by gang members who were acquainted with one of her relatives. Sandoval was hospitalized for almost a month. Subsequently, he accused M.P. of knowing more about the attack than she had revealed, and they argued. Sandoval had a pocket knife in his hand and he threatened to cut M.P.’s face. Sandoval touched the point of the knife blade to M.P.’s forehead and cut her slightly.

CONTENTION

The trial court erred by basing a Three Strikes sentence on Sandoval’s juvenile adjudications.

DISCUSSION

Three Strikes sentence was properly imposed.

Sandoval contends his juvenile adjudications could not have been the basis for a Three Strikes sentence because he did not have a right to a jury trial in those juvenile proceedings. This claim is meritless.

This issue is currently pending before our Supreme Court in People v. Nguyen, review granted October 10, 2007, S154847, which presents the following issue: Can a prior juvenile adjudication of a criminal offense in California constitutionally subject a defendant to the provisions of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) although there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile wardship proceedings in this state?

Sandoval argues that, by including prior juvenile adjudications in its definition of a strike, the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subd. (d)(3)) is unconstitutional because he did not have a right to a jury in the juvenile proceeding. Not so. Just because Sandoval “had no right to a jury trial when he suffered the prior adjudication in juvenile court does not prevent using the prior juvenile adjudication as a strike . . . .” (People v. Bowden (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 387, 389-390.) “By enacting the three strikes law, the Legislature has not transformed juvenile adjudications into criminal convictions; it simply has said that, under specified circumstances, a prior juvenile adjudication may be used as evidence of past criminal conduct for the purpose of increasing an adult defendant’s sentence.” (People v. Fowler (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 581, 586; see also In re Myresheia W. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 734, 741 [minor not entitled to jury trial even though juvenile adjudication could subsequently trigger Three Strikes sentence].)

Sandoval argues he was denied the right established by Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435], to have the jury, not the trial court, determine if he had sustained the prior juvenile adjudication that triggered the Three Strikes law. Not so. To evade Apprendi’s rule that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury” (Id. at p. 490), Sandoval relies on the majority opinion in U.S. v. Tighe (9th Cir. 2001) 266 F.3d 1187, which held that “[j]uvenile adjudications that do not afford the right to a jury trial . . . do not fall within Apprendi’s ‘prior conviction’ exception.” (Id. at p. 1194.) However, we agree with those analyses – starting with the dissenting opinion in Tighe – which have concluded that juvenile adjudications do not constitute an exception to Apprendi’s prior conviction rule. (See U.S. v. Smalley (8th Cir. 2002) 294 F.3d 1030, 1033 [contrary to Tighe, “juvenile adjudications, like adult convictions, are so reliable that due process of law is not offended by [Apprendi’s prior conviction] exemption”]; U.S. v. Tighe, supra, 266 F.3d at p. 1198, Brunnetti, J., dissenting [“The majority reaches the unsupportable conclusion that a juvenile adjudication is not a ‘conviction’ for sentencing enhancement purposes because, in essence, juveniles have no constitutional right to a trial by jury.”]; see also People v. Superior Court (Andrades) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 817, 834 [“a prior juvenile adjudication may constitutionally be used as a ‘strike’ despite the fact that there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile proceedings”].)

The trial court did not err by basing a Three Strikes sentence on Sandoval’s juvenile adjudications.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: CROSKEY, J., KITCHING, J.


Summaries of

People v. Sandoval

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Mar 20, 2008
No. B198797 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Sandoval

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ENRIQUE SANDOVAL…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Mar 20, 2008

Citations

No. B198797 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2008)