P.
P. v. Colbourn CA3
Opinion
Opinion
FACTS
The facts of defendant’s offenses are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, when it concluded his 2003 juvenile adjudication qualified as a prior serious felony strike conviction for the purpose of increasing his maximum punishment. As defendant acknowledges, the California Supreme Court rejected his contention in People v. Nguyen (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1007 at pages 1010-1019. Defendant recognizes Nguyen is binding upon this court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455; see People v. Pacheco (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 343, 345-346.) Accordingly, his contention has no merit.
1Defendant also raised the credit issue by motion in the trial court. Defendant subsequently advised this court his motion in the trial court was granted and an amended abstract of judgment was filed with the correct credits: 554 days of custody credit and 554 days of conduct credit. We granted his request to withdraw this argument.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.