People v. Scott

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE DEE SCOTT, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Jun 9, 2011

No. H035937 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2011)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE DEE SCOTT, Defendant and Appellant. H035937 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District June 9, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC772667.

LUCERO, J.^*

* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant Andre Dee Scott appeals from a judgment imposing a state prison sentence of three years and four months following his no contest pleas to criminal charges of possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and forcibly resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 69) filed by the District Attorney and following a court trial on the prior conviction allegation. The prior conviction allegation was from a juvenile court adjudication. The trial court concluded that the prior conviction allegation was true and used it to double the defendant’s sentence under the Three Strikes law.

Defendant raises two issues. The first issue is that the use of juvenile adjudications to enhance a defendant’s sentence under California’s Three Strikes law violates the Federal Constitution’s Due Process Clause, and the second issue is that the use of the juvenile adjudication to enhance a defendant’s sentence under California’s Three Strikes law violates the Sixth Amendment, given that juveniles do not enjoy a right to a jury trial in juvenile proceedings in this state. We shall affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The historical facts underlying defendant’s pleas are not necessary to the resolution of the issues raised in this appeal and therefore will not be summarized.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues at length that his constitutional rights were violated by the use of his prior juvenile adjudication as a “strike” to enhance his current sentence. However, as defendant also points out, our Supreme Court has determined that use of a prior juvenile adjudication to enhance a sentence under the Three Strikes law does not violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial or his Due Process Clause rights held under the 14th Amendment. (People v. Nguyen (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1007.) As an intermediate appellate tribunal, we are bound by our Supreme Court’s holding. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.) Therefore, we reject defendant’s claim.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J., MIHARA, J.