People v. Dorsey CA4/3
G059841
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2021Background:
- In 2003 Edward Dorsey was convicted of brandishing a firearm, felon-in-possession, and street terrorism with gang-related sentencing enhancements; the court also found two prior serious felonies.
- He was originally sentenced to 35 years-to-life under California's Three Strikes law; after one conviction/enhancement was vacated he was resentenced to an aggregate 30 years-to-life.
- A 2014 resentencing/Proposition 36 (§1170.126) petition was denied because he was ineligible under the Three Strikes scheme.
- In November 2020 Dorsey moved for a People v. Franklin hearing to preserve evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing (§3051).
- The trial court denied the Franklin motion, concluding that defendants sentenced under Three Strikes are statutorily ineligible for youth offender parole hearings and therefore not entitled to Franklin procedures.
- Dorsey appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who is statutorily ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing under the Three Strikes law is nonetheless entitled to a Franklin hearing | Three Strikes defendants are excluded by statute and case law from §3051 youth offender parole eligibility, so Franklin does not apply | Even though he is ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing, he should still receive a Franklin hearing to build a record of youth-related mitigation | Denial affirmed: Franklin and In re Cook apply only to inmates who will be eligible for youth offender parole hearings; Dorsey is excluded by statute and thus not entitled to a Franklin hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) (establishes Franklin hearing to preserve evidence for future youth offender parole hearings)
- In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (2019) (Franklin hearing available via §1203.01 motion for final sentences; movant must show entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing)
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (2012) (limits on convicting a single gang member under §186.22(a))
- People v. Moore, 68 Cal.App.5th 856 (2021) (Three Strikes defendants are ineligible for youth offender parole hearings)
- People v. Wilkes, 46 Cal.App.5th 1159 (2020) (same: §3051 does not apply to those sentenced under the Three Strikes scheme)