Supreme Court of California

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) __ U.S. __ [127 S.Ct. 856], denial of a challenge to the validity of defendant's upper term sentence is affirmed where: 1) imposition of an upper term sentence did not violate defendant's right to a jury trial, because at least one aggravating circumstance was established by means that satisfy Sixth Amendment requirements and thus made him eligible for the upper term; and 2) neither Cunningham nor the relevant prior high court decisions apply to the imposition of consecutive terms.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/20/2007
• Published 07/20/2007

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Eileen S. Kotler, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Pacifica, for Defendant and Appellant., Deborah A. Kwast, Public Defender (Orange), Thomas Havlena, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Kevin J. Phillips, Assistant Public Defender, and Martin E. Schwarz, Deputy Public Defender, for Orange County Public Defender's Office as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, and Charles D. Weisselberg, for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves and Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorneys General, J. Robert Jibson, Judy Kaida, Jaime L. Fuster, Kristofer Jorstad and Lawrence M. Daniels, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent., David R. LaBahn, Sacramento, George Kennedy, San Jose, James P. Fox and Martin Murray, Redwood City, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.