People v. Dexter CA3

Filed 3/28/23 P. v. Dexter CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095756

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE011056)

v.

AARON DEXTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Aaron Dexter appeals a judgment entered after a jury determined he committed robbery, attempted petty theft, and found true the allegation that he had suffered a prior strike as a result of a prior juvenile adjudication for robbery. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal challenges whether a juvenile adjudication may properly be used as a prior strike for purposes of California’s “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd.

1

(b)-(i), 1170.12),1 arguing developments in case law require a reevaluation of the issue. We disagree and will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The People’s amended information charged defendant with second degree robbery (§ 211; count one) and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664/211; count two). The information also alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) as the result of a prior juvenile adjudication for robbery (§ 211). Given the legal issue presented in this appeal, the facts underlying these allegations are not relevant and will not be recounted here. It is enough to note defendant entered a temporarily closed minimart and grabbed a case of beer. A physical struggle ensued, and defendant ultimately fled with personal property belonging to one of the minimart employees. The matter was tried by a jury in two phases, with the prior strike bifurcated at defendant’s request. The jury found defendant guilty of robbery and the lesser included offense of attempted petty theft (§§ 664/484, subd. (a)), but not guilty of attempted robbery. The jury then found the prior strike allegation true. The trial court sentenced defendant on February 18, 2022, which included time for an unrelated case. The court denied defendant’s renewed Romero2 motion to dismiss his prior strike and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of eight years eight months, plus a one-year consecutive jail term. This sentence was comprised of six years eight months, plus a one-year consecutive jail term for the unrelated case, plus a consecutive term of two years for the robbery (one-third the midterm, doubled because of the prior