People v. Dorsey CA2/5

Filed 6/24/16 P. v. Dorsey CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B268239

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

ALLEN DORSEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hayden A. Zacky, Judge. Affirmed. Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

This appeal is from a judgment imposed upon resentencing and an order denying a

Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) resentencing petition.1 Defendant, Allen Dorsey, was convicted following a jury trial of grant theft of property valued at or above $950. (§ 487, subd. (a).) The trial court found he had previously sustained one prior serious or violent felony conviction and served four prior separate prison terms. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. On appeal, we found there was insufficient evidence to support three of the four prior separate prison term enhancements. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) We remanded to permit the prosecution to retry those allegations. We also directed the trial court to clarify its sentence insofar as it referred to a “three years mid-term” for grand theft. We noted that, “[T]he mid-term sentence for grand theft of property valued at or above $950 is two years, not three. (People v. Dorsey (March 30, 2015, B255376) [nonpub. opn.].) Following remittitur issuance, the prosecution declined to retry the three prior separate prison term enhancements, leaving only one such one-year enhancement to be imposed. The trial court clarified that it had imposed a three-year high term for grand theft. On June 15, 2015, defendant was resentenced to seven years in state prison. On June 17, 2015, defendant filed a section 1170.18, subdivision (a) resentencing petition. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel requested this court independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284.) We have examined the entire record and are satisfied appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. On March 28, 2016, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. On April 18,