P. v. Dominguez

1
Filed 12/11/06 P. v. Dominguez CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SERGIO DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
C050399
(Super. Ct. No. 04F09169)
A jury convicted defendant Sergio Dominguez of four counts
of attempted robbery in concert of an inhabited dwelling house
(Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A), 664), two counts of
robbery in concert of an inhabited dwelling house (Pen. Code,
§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), two counts of battery with
serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)), and two
counts of assault by means of force likely to result in great
bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).
The trial court sentenced defendant to 13 years computed as
follows: a middle term of six years for one robbery count; a
consecutive two years (one-third the middle term) on the other
robbery count; four consecutive one-year sentences (one-third
the middle term) for the four attempted robbery counts; and one

-- 1 of 3 --

2
year consecutive (one-third the middle term) for one battery
count. The court also imposed the following sentences and
stayed execution pursuant to Penal Code section 654: three
years concurrent on the other battery count, one consecutive
year for one assault count, and three years concurrent for the
other assault count.
On appeal, defendant contends the imposition of consecutive
sentences violated the principles of Blakely v. Washington
(2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely). We reject
defendant’s contention and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
As the facts of defendant’s crimes are not needed to
resolve the appeal, they are summarized briefly. About 7:00
p.m. on August 22, 2004, defendant, Jerome Stowe (J.C.), Steven
Yearwood, and Brian Carlino knocked on the door of an apartment
in Rancho Cordova. Anastacio Sanchez, Julio Perez, Raul Reyes,
Alfonso Oliveres, and Jose Sanchez were in the apartment that
evening. After the door was opened defendant and J.C. demanded
money from the residents. Defendant eventually struck Julio
Perez in the face with a set of brass knuckles. He and J.C.
then hit Jose Sanchez, who gave them about $15.
Raul Reyes heard screaming and came out from his bedroom.
Defendant caught him in the hallway and punched him in the face
and head. J.C. struck Anastacio in the head. J.C. also hit
Alfonso in the face and took his wallet and change. Defendant
and J.C. hit Julio Perez several times with a stereo. Defendant
also cut Jose Sanchez’s arm with a knife.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
DISCUSSION
Defendant claims that Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. 296,
invalidates the statutory method used by California trial judges
to impose consecutive sentences, thereby invalidating his
sentence. Defendant recognizes that the California Supreme
Court rejected his Blakely contention in People v. Black (2005)
35 Cal.4th 1238, 1262-1263, but states he is making the argument
to preserve the issue for federal review. Pursuant to Black, we
reject the contention. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SIMS , Acting P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
HULL , J.

-- 3 of 3 --