How have the courts treated a motion to separate two prior convictions from one prior conviction?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Valdez, B279354 (Cal. App. 2018):
The trial court granted appellant's motion to bifurcate the priors. The court also granted appellant's motions to exclude any references to his gang affiliation, the high-crime nature of the area where he was arrested, shootings in the area, and graffiti in the area of the same color as the spray paint can in his possession at the time of his arrest. The court granted the People's motion to allow testimony of appellant's prior contact with the police officer. After holding a hearing under Evidence Code section 402, the court denied appellant's request to exclude his statement made in the patrol car under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the prior convictions.
The jury found appellant guilty. The trial court found the allegations of the prior convictions to be true. The court denied appellant's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, but exercised its decision under section 1385 to strike the two state prison priors ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced
Page 5
appellant to the high term of three years doubled to six years. Appellant timely appealed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
