Urbano

People v. Urbano

Good Law
128 Cal. App. 4th 396·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 572·2005 Daily Journal DAR 4211·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3116
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 11, 2005F044381California3,307 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gomes, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Raymond Guadalupe Urbano argues that the admission in evidence at trial of a comment and a gesture he made to his attorney in the jury box of his preliminary hearing courtroom while court was not in session violated the attorney-client privilege. He argues that the court’s denial without jury findings of his motions to strike both his strike prior and his criminal street gang enhancement and the court’s imposition without jury findings of an additional restitution fine and an additional parole revocation restitution fine violate Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 ] (Blakely), that the fines are constitutionally excessive, and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object. We will reject each of his arguments and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

One evening at a bar, Urbano and James Bailey told Kevin Ramsey they were Fresno Bulldogs and lifted their shirts to show off gang tattoos on their abdomens. Eric Green, sitting next to Ramsey at the bar, said jokingly, “[A]re you running the kids off again[?]” Urbano confronted Green “like, you know, you want some.” Green said,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.