People v. Dorsey CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 12/15/22 P. v. Dorsey CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B319169

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA031453) v.

MARK EDWARD DORSEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Dismissed. California Appellate Project, Richard B. Lennon and Anna Rea under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following a jury trial and later court trial, on July 29, 1998, the trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 37 years, consisting of six years for his conviction for attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211)1, 30 years for three firearm enhancements (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), and one year for a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court also sentenced defendant to two consecutive life terms for the kidnapping for robbery counts. Finally, the court imposed and then stayed a sentence on additional counts and enhancements. On February 14, 2022, defendant filed a motion to strike the firearm enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 and his one prior prison term enhancement stricken pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483. On February 22, 2022, the trial court denied the motion, finding that it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. Defendant appealed. Appointed counsel filed a brief in this matter, conceding that “[c]ourts have found similar orders unappealable,” (see People v. Johnson (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 938, 940; People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135) but requesting that we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). On September 8, 2022, this court sent a notice to defendant advising him that he had 30 days from the date of the notice in which to submit a supplemental brief stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions or arguments which defendant wished this court to consider. The court received no response. We therefore dismiss this appeal as having been abandoned. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503.)

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.