P. v. Bailey
Filed 5/24/06 P. v. Bailey CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DORIAN D. BAILEY, Defendant and Appellant. | C047633 (Super. Ct. No. 02F04841) |
Defendant Dorian D. Bailey sexually assaulted two different women in two unrelated attacks on the same day. A jury convicted him of 13 counts charging various sex offenses (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1) (unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code); § 220; § 243.4, subd. (a); § 261, subd. (a)(2); §§ 664/286, subd. (c)(2); § 286, subd. (c)(2); § 288a, subd. (c)(2)) and one count of first degree robbery (§ 211). The jury also found charged enhancements to be true. (§§ 667.61, subds. (a), (d)(2), (d)(4), (e)(5).) The trial court imposed an aggregate unstayed sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life plus 54 years.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the court erred in failing to order a hearing to determine defendant's competency to stand trial, (2) the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for a rape kit, and (3) the court erred in imposing sentence. We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Facts
Given the nature of defendant's claims on appeal, a detailed description of the underlying offenses is unnecessary. Suffice it to say, defendant sexually assaulted a teenager near her high school and sexually assaulted another woman in her own home. Both attacks occurred on the same day.
Other facts are discussed as relevant in the context of defendant's contentions.
Discussion
I
Competence to Stand Trial
Although defendant's attorney did not raise any concerns about defendant's competence to stand trial, defendant asserts the court erred in failing to order a competency hearing on its own motion. Defendant's claim of error is without merit.
Section 1367, subdivision (a) provides that a defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial if, â€
