People v. Davis CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 8, 2024 No. C097720Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that although the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Penal Code section 1381, the error was harmless because the defendant ultimately received a concurrent sentence, and any claim of prejudice regarding the timing of the sentence was speculative.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 1381 when the defendant requested a trial rather than sentencing.
Whether the erroneous denial of a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 1381 was prejudicial when the defendant ultimately received a concurrent sentence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Although a defendant is not required to show prejudice to prevail on a motion to dismiss for noncompliance with the statutory time limits, a defendant is required to show the erroneous denial of his motion was prejudicial on appeal.”

“By imposing a concurrent sentence, the trial court thus achieved the goal of section 1381, even if the prosecution failed in its application.”

“Davis’s calculations, however, are speculative, and assume a hypothetical scenario where he was sentenced immediately upon the receipt of his initial notice.”

Filed 1/8/24 P. v. Davis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097720

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FER- 2020-0001328) v.

MAURICE TERRELL DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A trial court in San Joaquin County found defendant Maurice Terrell Davis guilty of multiple auto theft-related counts, but Davis failed to appear for sentencing. He was arrested approximately six months later on other charges in Stanislaus County, then convicted and sentenced in that case. While serving his sentence in Stanislaus County,

Davis sent a notice under Penal Code1 section 1381 to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, notifying them they were required to bring him to “trial” within 90 days. The San Joaquin County prosecutor took no action in response to the notice and Davis filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the trial court denied. The trial court then sentenced Davis to a five-year split sentence, to run concurrently with the Stanislaus County sentence. Davis argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion. The People agree the trial court erred, but assert any error was harmless. We conclude any prejudice is speculative and will thus affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND

Police officers arrested Davis in connection with the theft of two cars. The San Joaquin County prosecutor charged Davis with two counts of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)). As to each count, it was alleged Davis had seven prior auto theft convictions. (§ 666.5, subd. (a).) Davis elected to have a bench trial based on the preliminary hearing transcript and police reports. The trial court found Davis guilty of one count of unlawfully taking a vehicle and one count of receiving stolen property. The court also found true the prior auto theft conviction allegations. Davis failed to appear for the sentencing hearing on April 5, 2021. On October 5, 2021, he was arrested on other charges in Stanislaus County. On May 18, 2022, the Stanislaus County Superior Court sentenced Davis with a tentative release date of April 1, 2024. On June 13, 2022, Davis filled out a form notice under section 1381 for the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The form listed Davis’s name and

People v. Davis CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C097720

MAURICE TERRELL DAVIS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief