People v. Lorenzen CA3

Filed 2/26/21 P. v. Lorenzen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, C090192

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFECOD20180013084) v.

TASHA LORENZEN,

Defendant and Respondent.

Defendant Tasha Lorenzen pled guilty to multiple counts of burglary and theft. At a bench trial, the trial court ruled that defendant’s prior convictions in Nebraska did not count as strikes under Penal Code1 section 667 and sentenced her to an aggregate seven years and eight months in prison. The People now appeal, arguing that two of her prior convictions for burglary in Nebraska qualify as strikes under the three strikes law. We reject the People’s argument and affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts to defendant’s California crimes are not relevant to this appeal. It suffices to say that defendant and her friend stole numerous items from her friend’s roommate’s apartment, as well as his vehicle. Defendant pled guilty to two counts of residential burglary (§ 459), residential robbery (§ 211), unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). She also admitted the victim of the residential burglary and residential robbery was an elder, (§ 667.9, subd. (a)), and that a person other than an accomplice was present during the burglary (§ 667.5). As part of the plea, the district attorney also alleged that defendant had incurred three prior strike convictions, based on her prior convictions for burglary in Nebraska. In fact, defendant previously pled no contest to two counts of burglary at two separate locations (Neb. Rev. Stat., § 28-507) in case no. CR15-1449.2 At the Nebraska plea hearing, the trial court recited the elements of her charges, referring to the buildings as “any real estate or any improvements,” consistent with the statutory language. (Neb. Rev. Stat., § 28-507.) Defendant agreed that she understood her charges. When the trial court asked her how she wished to plead to each count, she responded “no contest.” The trial court then asked whether defendant understood that “by entering a plea of no contest while you are not admitting your guilt[,] you are saying you will not contest the charges against you but you are agreeing the Court can find you guilty of these charges if the facts outlined by the county attorney’s office would be legally sufficient to support such findings of guilt.” Defendant answered in the affirmative. The prosecutor then stated the factual basis for defendant’s pleas in detail,