People v. Dorsey CA4/3

Filed 12/15/21 P. v. Dorsey CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059841

v. (Super. Ct. No. 03NF3450)

EDWARD DEWAYNE DORSEY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed. Spolin Law and Aaron Spolin for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION The trial court denied defendant Edward Dewayne Dorsey’s request for a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). We affirm. The purpose of a Franklin hearing is to preserve evidence for a later youth offender parole hearing. By statute, defendant is not and will not be eligible for a youth offender parole hearing; therefore he is not entitled to a Franklin hearing.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was arrested after the victim described him to the police as the person who had run toward him pointing a gun. A gang expert testified at trial that defendant was a member of a gang and that he had accosted the victim with a gun in order to benefit the gang. (People v. Dorsey (Apr. 5, 2006, G034957) [nonpub. opn.].)1 A jury found defendant guilty of brandishing a firearm (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(2)),2 possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found true sentencing enhancement allegations that the first two offenses were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) In a bifurcated bench trial, the court found true that defendant had suffered two prior serious and violent felonies. (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(2)(A).) (People v. Dorsey, supra, G034957.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 35 years to life (25 years to life on count 2, plus two 5-year consecutive terms pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), and