People v. Taylor CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Mar 29, 2022 No. B306960Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Three Strikes law does not require prior strike convictions to be pleaded on a count-by-count basis to apply to all eligible offenses, and that a judge, not a jury, may determine whether sexual offenses occurred on separate occasions for sentencing purposes.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in imposing a third-strike sentence on a count where the prior strike allegations were not specifically pleaded to that count.
Whether a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination on whether sexual offenses occurred on separate occasions for consecutive sentencing purposes.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the express pleading requirement under the Three Strikes statute does not require the qualifying felony convictions to be alleged as to each count.”

“Citation to the Three Strikes law, along with an allegation of [the prior strikes], was sufficient to place [appellant] on notice that all eligible offenses would be subject to the Three Strikes sentencing scheme.”

Filed 3/29/22 P. v. Taylor CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B306960

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA084120) v.

JOE ALFRED TAYLOR III,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of California. Richard J. Kirschner, Judge. Affirmed. Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Joe Alfred Taylor III appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of multiple sex offenses and first-degree robbery. On appeal, Taylor argues: (1) the trial court improperly imposed a 25-year-to-life term on count 10 because the District Attorney did not allege a three strike enhancement on count 10; and (2) he had a right to have the jury determine whether his act of sexual penetration by a foreign object and acts of forcible sodomy (counts 1 through 4) took place “on separate occasions.” We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND1

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed a third amended information charging Taylor with sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code,2 § 289, subd. (a)(1); count 1), forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A); counts 2-4), and first-degree residential robbery (§ 211; counts 6-10). As to counts 1 through 4, it was further alleged Taylor was armed with a firearm (§ 12022.3, subd. (b)), was engaged in first-degree burglary (§ 667.61, subds. (a) & (e)), and personally used a deadly weapon (a pellet gun) (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)). As to counts 6 through 10, it was further alleged Taylor personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a pellet gun) (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).

People v. Taylor CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B306960

JOE ALFRED TAYLOR III,

INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief