Dorsey

People v. Dorsey

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 906·75 Cal. App. 4th 729·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 498·99 Daily Journal DAR 10505·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8255
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1999B124974California3,721 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

Defendant, Mark Edward Dorsey, appeals from his convictions for: two counts of kidnapping for robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)); two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211); a single count of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211); and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1).) It was also determined that defendant: personally used a firearm in the commission of the kidnappings, robberies, and the attempted robbery (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)); had previously been convicted of a serious felony (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)); and had served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5.) Defendant has received a sentence of two consecutive life terms plus 37 years. Additionally, the trial court imposed a direct victim restitution order pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f). In the published portion of this opinion, we address the question of whether penalty assessments mandated by section 1464, subdivision (a) and Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a) must be added to the direct victim restitution award. We conclude such penalty assessments may not be imposed on a direct victim restitution…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.