Court Opinion

ID: 9915852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 20:03:01.63489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:14.195771
License: Public Domain

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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

                                                             1
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

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
charges and requested that he “be brought to trial on the above charges as set forth under
section 1381 of the Penal Code.” A sheriff’s deputy signed the form as a witness and
Davis sent the form to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The San
Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office received the form on June 27, 2022, but did
not take any action. At some point, Davis called the district attorney’s office to check on
the status of his case.
       On October 19, 2022, Davis filed a motion to dismiss the case under section 1381.
The prosecution opposed the motion.
       On November 28, 2022, the trial court denied the motion, saying: “Well, it’s a
1381 demand, but it says he wants his trial. He already had his trial. It doesn’t say
anything about sentencing. So I don’t think he’s complied with 1381 as far as the
sentencing requests. So I don’t believe it has to be dismissed. So I will deny the motion
to dismiss.”
       On December 5, 2022, the trial court sentenced Davis to a five-year split sentence,
with four years in county jail and one year on community supervision. The court ordered
the sentence to run concurrently with any other terms Davis was serving and awarded
custody credits for the time he served in San Joaquin County, subject to correction if
additional credits were warranted for the time spent in custody in Stanislaus County.
       Davis filed a notice of appeal with this court in January 2023. His opening brief
was filed in August 2023, and this case was fully briefed on October 19, 2023.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Davis argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to
dismiss, saying he complied with the requirements set out in the statute. The People
agree the trial court erred, but assert any error was harmless because Davis received
concurrent sentencing, fulfilling the purpose of section 1381.
       “Section 1381 provides, in pertinent part, that a state prisoner may demand to be
brought ‘for sentencing within 90 days’ of giving appropriate notice to the district

                                             3
attorney where ‘any other indictment, information, complaint, or any criminal proceeding
wherein the defendant remains to be sentenced’ is currently pending. (Italics added.) ‘In
the event that the defendant is not brought to trial or for sentencing within the 90 days the
court in which the charge or sentencing is pending shall . . . dismiss the action.’ (Ibid.,
italics added.)” (People v. Wagner (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1039, 1045.)
       “The purpose of section 1381 ‘is to permit a defendant to obtain concurrent
sentencing at the hands of the court in which the earlier proceeding is pending, if such is
the court’s discretion. [Citations.]’ (Boles v. Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 479,
484.) ‘That section was placed in the law so that a prisoner could clean up pending
charges as well as charges arising while in a prison status so that he would not have these
charges hanging over him and waiting for him on his release.’ (People v. Simpson (1973)
30 Cal.App.3d 177, 181.) Section 1381 was not intended to be used as a means of
avoiding prosecution. (People v. Manina (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 896, 900.)” (People v.
Boggs (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 851, 855.)
       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. (People v. Martinez (2000)
22 Cal.4th 750, 769.) Courts considering similar situations have generally rejected
claims of prejudice based solely on the loss of an opportunity to serve a concurrent
sentence. (People v. Lowe (2007) 40 Cal.4th 937, 945-946.)
       Here, although the prosecutor failed to act on Davis’s case and the trial court
denied his motion to dismiss on erroneous grounds, the trial court did order Davis’s
sentence be served concurrently with the Stanislaus County term. The trial court was not
otherwise obligated to impose the sentence concurrently; a concurrent sentence was not
contemplated when the parties first discussed sentencing when Davis was choosing to
waive his right to a jury trial. Moreover, the Stanislaus County case and the current case
involved completely different crimes, and the court could have chosen to impose a

                                              4
consecutive sentence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.425.) By imposing a concurrent
sentence, the trial court thus achieved the goal of section 1381, even if the prosecution
failed in its application.
       Davis argues that, despite the imposition of the concurrent sentence, he was still
deprived of the benefits of the sentence because, had he been sentenced in a timely
fashion, his sentence would have started to run — and would eventually end — earlier.
Davis’s calculations, however, are speculative, and assume a hypothetical scenario where
he was sentenced immediately upon the receipt of his initial notice. As noted above,
nothing required the trial court to impose a concurrent sentence, and it is possible that, if
the trial court had immediately sentenced Davis, the court could have imposed a
consecutive sentence. There are no other indicators of actual prejudice from the lack of
speedy sentencing, such as lost evidence, faded memories, or witness unavailability.
(People v. Lowe, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 946; People v. Gutierrez (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th
105, 111-112.) Any error was thus harmless.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      /s/
                                                  BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

    /s/
EARL, P. J.

    /s/
ROBIE, J.

                                              5