People v. Johnson CA3

Filed 9/26/14 P. v. Johnson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074188

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR85946)

v.

DOMINIQUE TASHAUN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Dominique Tashaun Johnson guilty of reckless evasion of a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and found he had a prior strike conviction for robbery in Washington (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i); unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code). Sentenced to six years in state prison, defendant appeals. He contends reversal is required because the trial court gave the jury a “conflicting” instruction that lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof. He also contends, and the People concede, that there was

1

insufficient evidence that his prior Washington robbery conviction qualified as a strike and that the abstract erroneously indicates the trial court imposed a section 1202.5 fine. We reverse the prior strike finding and order the preparation of an amended abstract of judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A detailed recitation of the facts underlying the offense is unnecessary to the resolution of the issues on appeal. Instead of stopping in response to a California Highway Patrol officer’s activation of emergency lights and the siren, defendant accelerated to twice the legal speed limit and ran a red light before losing control of his vehicle, skidding through a ditch and crashing into a stop sign. The jury found defendant guilty of reckless evasion of a pursuing peace officer. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true that defendant had sustained a prior conviction for robbery in Washington. The trial court found the robbery conviction constituted a strike, as the statutory definitions of robbery in Washington and California were similar. The trial court denied defendant’s request to dismiss his prior strike and sentenced defendant to the upper prison term of three years, doubled to six years for the strike.