P. v. Kinsey
Filed 6/27/06 P. v. Kinsey CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEDELL KINSEY, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C049548
(Super. Ct. No. 04F07839)
|
A jury found defendant Ledell Kinsey, Jr., guilty of corporal injury on a cohabitant (count one), assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (count two), criminal threats (count three), and forcible rape (count four). It found not true allegations he had personally inflicted great bodily injury. The court found he had two prior serious felony convictions that also qualified as strikes and had served two prior prison terms.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 78 years to life as follows: for count one, 25 years to life plus 4 years for the infliction of great bodily injury; for count two, a stayed 25 years to life plus 4 years for the infliction of great bodily injury; for count three, a concurrent 25 years to life; for count four, a consecutive 25 years to life; for the two prior serious felony convictions, a consecutive 20 years; and for the two prior prison terms, a consecutive 4 years.
On appeal, defendant raises the following five contentions: (1) the admission of his prior acts of domestic violence as propensity evidence violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial; (2) the court's instruction on the preponderance of evidence standard used to evaluate the prior-acts evidence violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial; (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a key witness; (4) the great bodily injury enhancements must be stricken because the jury found them not true; and (5) the court erred in imposing the two prior prison term enhancements separately as to each count. Agreeing only with defendant's fourth contention, we will order the great bodily injury enhancements stricken and the abstract of judgment modified accordingly.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A
The Prosecution
Joni M. met defendant in November or December 2003, when he came over to Joni M.'s home with an â€
