Kelly

In our opinion upon remand in People v. Kelly (Sept. 29, 2006, E036170) [nonpub. opn.] (Kelly I), we conditionally affirmed defendant’s convictions for driving/taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); the findings that he had suffered three priors for which he served prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and three-strike priors (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)); and his sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life, plus three years. The condition was that the trial court, on remand, “allow the prosecutor to state her reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges of which [defendant] complained below. If she offers a race-neutral explanation, the [trial] court . . . must try to evaluate that explanation and determine ‘whether [defendant] has proved purposeful racial discrimination. ... If it finds this prosecutor exercised [her] peremptory challenges in a permissible fashion, it should re[in]state the judgment^ ’ [citation] .... If the trial court is unable to make this ruling, ‘it should set the case for a new trial.’…