People v. Orta CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 23, 2024 No. F086230Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the trial court's failure to strike sentencing enhancements under Penal Code section 1385 by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. The court further held that the sentence imposed was not an unauthorized sentence, and that the defendant's self-represented status did not excuse his failure to preserve the issue.

Issues

Whether a defendant forfeits a claim under Penal Code section 1385 by failing to request that the trial court strike sentencing enhancements at the time of sentencing.
Whether the imposition of sentencing enhancements constitutes an unauthorized sentence that survives a claim of forfeiture.
Whether a self-represented defendant is held to the same standard as an attorney regarding the preservation of sentencing issues for appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s claim is forfeited for failure to request that the trial court strike the enhancements under section 1385.”

“The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’”

“The sentence imposed here is not an “unauthorized sentence.””

Filed 8/23/24 P. v. Orta CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086230 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF016940A) v.

JOSEPH G. ORTA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. James S. Donnelly-Saalfield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kari Ricci Mueller and Darren K. Indermill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Joseph G. Orta challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court following a jury trial. Defendant has not raised any issues from the jury trial itself. Following our review of the sentence imposed, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 17, 2023, an information was filed charging defendant with being an inmate serving a life sentence who committed a malicious assault while using a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 4500, a felony; count 1), being an inmate who committed an assault while using a deadly weapon (§ 4501, subd. (a), a felony; count 2), being an inmate who committed an assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 4501, subd. (b), a felony; count 3), and unlawfully possessing a weapon while an inmate (§ 4502, subd. (a), a felony; count 4). Attached to all counts were several enhancing allegations stating defendant had suffered prior convictions for serious felonies and was subject to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (a), (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)). On March 28, 2023, after the jury trial had already begun, the information was amended to add additional enhancements to all four counts. On March 17, 2023, following a hearing held pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, defendant’s request to be relieved of his trial counsel was granted and he was allowed to proceed to trial representing himself. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of the crimes charged in counts 1, 2, and 4, but acquitted of the charge contained in count 3 on March 29, 2023. After the trial was completed, the prosecution sought and was granted the dismissal of three of the enhancing allegations. Defendant then admitted the remaining enhancements and the prior strike and serious felony allegations alleged in the amended information.

People v. Orta CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief