People v. Dorsey CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 30, 2015 No. B255376Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court reversed the true findings on three prior prison term enhancements due to insufficient evidence and remanded for potential retrial, while also remanding for the trial court to clarify an ambiguous sentence for grand theft. The court affirmed the conviction and the trial court's denial of the Pitchess motion.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support three of the four prior separate prison term enhancements.
Whether the trial court's oral pronouncement of the grand theft sentence was ambiguous regarding the term length.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its in camera review of peace officer personnel records.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The oral pronouncement of sentence is ambiguous because the mid-term sentence for grand theft of property valued at or above $950 is two years, not three.”

“The true findings on the allegations of three prior separate prison terms—case Nos. A737349 (1988), LA005822 (1991), and SA047525 (2004)—are reversed.”

“We have reviewed the transcript of the in camera hearing. No abuse of discretion occurred.”

Filed 3/30/15 P. v. Dorsey CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B255376

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA077476) v.

ALLEN DORSEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hayden A. Zacky, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with directions. David Reis Mishook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant, Allen Dorsey, of grand theft. (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (a).) The trial court found defendant had one prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and had served four prior separate prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to 10 years in state prison.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Prior Separate Prison Term Enhancements

Defendant argues, and the Attorney General concedes, there was insufficient evidence to support three of the four prior separate prison term enhancements. (Case Nos. A737349 (1988), LA005822 (1991) and SA047525 (2004).) The Attorney General requests a remand for retrial. It is well established that the sentencing enhancement allegations may be retried. (Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 727-728, 734; People v. Monge (1997) 16 Cal.4th 826, 843, 845; People v. Villanueva (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 411, 422; People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1421; People v. Fielder (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1234; see People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 239.) Therefore, we will remand this case to permit the prosecution to retry the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement allegations.

People v. Dorsey CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B255376

ALLEN DORSEY,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DISCUSSION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. Peace Officer Personnel Records

III. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.

AI Brief