Is a sentence for a section 186.22, subdivision (a) street terrorism crime unconstitutional?

Sandoval contends that pursuant to section 654, the court should have stayed the sentence on his section 186.22, subdivision (a) street terrorism crime. Sandoval claims the court erroneously found he was punishable separately for that conviction because he had been carrying a concealed weapon on the night of the crime; however, that allegation was not charged, the prosecution expressly did not rely on itinstead relying solely on the murder as the theory of guiltand the jury did not make a finding on it. He argues the sentence was unauthorized under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, which holds, "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved

Page 22