Opinion
S283924
05-29-2024
PEOPLE v. DAIN
First Appellate District, Div. 2, A168286
The petition for review is granted.
The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding the case with directions to reinstate the strike finding and to resentence defendant as a person who has suffered a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes Law? (See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 164, fn. 7, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 948 P.2d 429; see also People v. McGlothin (1998) 67 Cal. App.4th 468, 478, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 83; People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 814, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 269; but see People v. Mayfield (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1109, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 633 ; People v. Strong (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 328, 347, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 490.)
Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 99 CalA.pp.5th 399, 317 Cal.Rptr.3d 805, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)
Votes: Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins and Evans, JJ.