Skip to content
Name: People v. Maharaj
Case #: C066059
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/23/2012
Summary

Trial court properly imposed full consecutive sentences for forcible sex offenses because the offenses are each included in Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (e). Appellant was convicted of sex offenses against one child under the age of 14 years. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for counts one through four. Count one was a section 288, subdivision (b) violation; counts two through four, aggravated sexual assault under section 269. Appellant contended the full consecutive sentences for counts two through four were unauthorized because count one was not committed “on the same occasion” as the other three counts, relying on People v. Goodliffe (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 783. Section 667.6, subdivision (c), provides in pertinent part: “In lieu of the term provided in Section 1170.1, a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion.” Appellant asserted this portion of section 667.6, subdivision (c) disallowed full, consecutive sentences for offenses committed against the same victim on a different occasion. However, “[e]ach of appellant’s convictions in counts one through four is included in section 667.6, subdivision (e). Consequently, section 667.6, required mandatory full consecutive sentences for each of appellant’s four forcible sexual offenses. Appellant’s reliance on Goodliffe is unavailing because there defendant was convicted of only one offense that came within section 667.6, subdivision (e). The remaining convictions were for non-forcible molestations of the same victim, and did not involve the same victim on the same occasion.