People v. Sorisho CA4/1

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Edward A. Sorisho appeals a judgment of conviction after a jury trial.

On appeal, Sorisho contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor's

objection to a portion of defense counsel's closing argument in which defense counsel

was attempting to elucidate the meaning of "abiding conviction" as that phrase is used in

the instruction regarding reasonable doubt. Sorisho also argues that he should be serving

his sentence in county jail, rather than state prison, pursuant to subdivision (h) of section

1170 of the Penal Code, and that we should vacate his sentence and remand the matter to

the trial court for resentencing.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the

prosecutor's objection to defense counsel's closing argument regarding the reasonable

doubt standard. Further, even if the trial court had erred in this regard, the jury was

properly instructed on the reasonable doubt standard, and Sorisho thus suffered no

prejudice.

With respect to Sorisho's argument concerning his sentence, both the People and

Sorisho agree that events that occurred in the trial court…