P. v. Ibrahim
Defendant and appellant Hussein Aden Ibrahim challenges his enhanced sentence under the three strikes law and under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1)[1] on the grounds the trial court erred in concluding his prior Minnesota conviction for burglary in the first degree constituted a strike prior and a serious felony prior under California law.
The Attorney General concedes that the record is insufficient to prove that Ibrahim's Minnesota burglary prior constitutes a strike prior and a serious felony prior under California law. However, the Attorney General argues that a retrial on the prior conviction for sentencing purposes is permissible and that the People should be allowed to present evidence from the record of Ibrahim's Minnesota burglary conviction to establish that it was a strike prior and a serious felony prior under California law. We agree with the Attorney General.
Comments on P. v. Ibrahim