P. v. Dixon

Filed 7/13/07 P. v. Dixon CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

NATHANIEL COLA DIXON,

Defendant and Appellant.

H030558

(Monterey County

Super. Ct. No. SS052973)

Defendant Nathaniel Cola Dixon pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. He waived jury trial in exchange for a maximum sentence of two years. The trial court found defendant guilty and found allegations of two prior convictions true for purposes of the Three Strikes law. It dismissed one of the true findings and sentenced defendant to two years. It then appointed a doctor to evaluate defendant and later acknowledged receipt of a letter from the doctor. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him before trial on his not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity (NGI) plea and failing to hold a trial on that plea. The People concede the point, and we agree that the concession is appropriate. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a trial on the NGI plea.

background

It is well established that, where an insanity plea is joined with a plea of not guilty, the trial and the verdict are not complete, and the court cannot impose a sentence after a verdict of guilty until and unless the insanity issue is first tried and the defendant found to be sane at the time the offenses were committed. It is irrelevant that the defendant may have failed to object to the entry of judgment before determination of his insanity plea. A sentence before both of such verdicts have been returned is void. (People v. Lyons (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 760, 780; see Pen. Code, 1026.)

discussion

Defendant entered an NGI plea, but the trial court pronounced judgment without ever holding an NGI trial. It will be necessary, therefore, to remand the case to the trial court for trial of defendants [NGI] plea . . . . (People v. Lyons, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at p. 780.)

disposition

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for trial upon the remaining issue of not guilty by reason of insanity. If defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court will then take proper steps in the premises. If he is found sane, the court will resentence him as provided by law.

Premo, J.

WE CONCUR:

Rushing, P.J.

Elia, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

Description	Defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner. He waived jury trial in exchange for a maximum sentence of two years. The trial court found defendant guilty and found allegations of two prior convictions true for purposes of the Three Strikes law. It dismissed one of the true findings and sentenced defendant to two years. It then appointed a doctor to evaluate defendant and later acknowledged receipt of a letter from the doctor. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him before trial on his not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) plea and failing to hold a trial on that plea. The People concede the point, and Court agree that the concession is appropriate. Court therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a trial on the NGI plea.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.