Court Opinion

ID: 9747469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:16:56.098152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.906496
License: Public Domain

Opinion
JACKSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
Juan Carlos Del Rio pleaded no contest to robbery, admitted a prior juvenile adjudication for robbery, and was sentenced to four years in state prison. Del Rio appeals from the judgment, contending the use of his prior juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence is unconstitutional. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Courtney Case was walking her dog when Del Rio approached and demanded money, claiming he had a gun. A struggle ensued, and Case stabbed Del Rio with her pocket knife. He fled with her purse. Del Rio was arrested and charged by information with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).1 The information further alleged Del Rio had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) arising out of a juvenile adjudication for robbery (§ 211). Del Rio pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegation.
Del Rio waived his constitutional rights, entered a negotiated plea of no contest to robbery and he admitted the prior robbery adjudicated in juvenile court. Del Rio was sentenced to four years in state prison, consisting of the two-year lower term doubled under the “Three Strikes” law.
*441Although Del Rio admitted the prior adjudication knowing it would be used as a strike, as part of the negotiated plea, it was agreed Del Rio could challenge this aspect of his sentence on appeal.
DISCUSSION
According to Del Rio, because he was not afforded the right to a jury trial in connection with his prior juvenile adjudication, the trial court violated his constitutional rights by using this prior adjudication to double his sentence. Acknowledging review has been granted in People v. Nguyen (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1205 [62 Cal.Rptr.3d 255], review granted October 10, 2007, SI54847, Del Rio nonetheless cites the case for the proposition a juvenile adjudication is not a prior conviction within the meaning of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348],
Pending a contrary decision by the California Supreme Court on this issue, we conclude, as we held in People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1075 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 901], “a juvenile adjudication may be used as a strike to enhance an adult offender’s sentence notwithstanding the absence of the right to a jury trial in delinquency proceedings.” (See also People v. Buchanan (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 139, 149 [49 Cal.Rptr.3d 137]; People v. Superior Court (Andrades) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 817, 830-834 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 74]; People v. Lee (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1312-1316 [4 Cal.Rptr.3d 642]; People v. Bowden (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 387, 391-394 [125 Cal.Rptr.2d 513]; People v. Fowler (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 581, 584-587 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 874].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Perluss, P. J., concurred.

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.