Once a trial court determines that full, consecutive terms are mandated under PC 667.6(d) because the violent sex offense occurred against multiple victims, it violates dual use to rely on the same multiple victims fact to impose upper terms on those counts under PC 1170.1. Although the parties agreed that courts are prohibited from relying on the same fact to impose both an upper term and a discretionary full, consecutive term under section 667.6(c), the issue was whether the same prohibition applies when the consecutive sentence is mandatory under section 667.6(d).  The court holds that it does.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D082126.PDF