Skip to content
Name: People v. Beman
Case #: A153841
Court: CA Supreme Court
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/21/2019

Trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences for conspiracy and the substantive offenses. Beman pleaded no contest to one count of conspiracy to commit human trafficking based on allegations that for more than seven years he and his coconspirators used threats, force, and violence in pimping at least three victims. Beman also pleaded no contest to two counts of human trafficking for his conduct against one of the three victims. Beman was sentenced to prison. He appealed, arguing that the two consecutive terms for the substantive human trafficking counts must be stayed under Penal Code section 654 because…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Torres
Case #: A146958
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/10/2018

Trial court erred in ruling it was required to impose consecutive sentences for five violent felony sex offenses under the Three Strikes law. Torres was convicted of robbery and multiple sex offenses (including five counts of digital penetration (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)) based on his assault of a woman. Prior strike offenses were found true. At sentencing the trial court found the Three Strikes law prohibited it from imposing the life sentences concurrently, so it ordered eight consecutive 25-years-to-life terms. Torres raised a number of issues on appeal, including that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences for…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Epperson
Case #: A145868
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/09/2017

Pursuant to Penal Code section 664, the penalty for attempted first degree residential robbery in concert is one-half the term set forth in section 213, subdivision (a)(1)(A). A jury convicted Epperson and his two codefendants of a number of offenses, including four counts of attempted first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211, 212.5). The jury also found that the attempted robberies were committed in concert with two or more persons. (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).) With respect to the attempted robberies, the trial court sentenced Epperson to consecutive one-year subordinate terms calculated as one-third of half the mid-term…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Woodworth
Case #: F069139
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/29/2016

In a case where defendant was convicted of dissuading a witness from reporting a felony assault, Penal Code section 1170.15 did not require the trial court to impose a full consecutive sentence for the dissuading conviction. When the trial court sentenced Woodworth for sexual assault and witness dissuasion, it imposed a fully consecutive term for the witness dissuasion count, believing that section 1170.15 prohibited it from imposing a concurrent term. Woodworth appealed, arguing the court misunderstood its discretion. Held: Reversed and remanded. Under the determinate sentencing law, if a defendant is sentenced for more than one felony at the same…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leon
Case #: F065532
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/13/2016

Defendant's un-Mirandized statement during jail classification interview that he was a gang member should have been suppressed under People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523. Leon, Centeno, Palofox, and Rivas, were charged with a number of offenses arising from a series of home invasion robberies that they allegedly committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Other alleged coconspirators were tried separately. To prove the gang allegations, the prosecution relied on statements that Centeno and his coconspirators gave during jail classification interviews admitting they were gang members. Centeno's counsel unsuccessfully objected to the admissibility of his jail classification interview…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hojnowski
Case #: A139455
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 08/04/2014

Consecutive terms were required for prison inmate's three battery by gassing offenses even though he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Appellant was convicted of three counts of aggravated battery by "gassing" under Penal Code section 4501.1 based on evidence that he spit on three different correctional officers when they were in the process of returning him to his prison cell after a shower. Allegations that appellant had suffered a prior strike and had served a prior prison term were found true. The trial court imposed consecutive terms, for an aggregate sentence of 11 years. On appeal, appellant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. LaPierre
Case #: B239304
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 07/03/2013

Trial court properly imposed state term to run consecutive to federal sentence previously imposed. A California trial court sentenced LaPierre to prison, the sentence to run consecutively to a federal sentence that was imposed previously. Thereafter, appeals in both the federal and state courts resulted in remands to the lower courts for resentencing, with the federal court resentencing LaPierre first. The state court reduced LaPierre's state sentence. LaPierre appealed an order denying his motion to require the state court to order his sentence be served concurrently to his federal sentence. The appellate court rejected LaPierre's argument, finding that the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Beard
Case #: C066320
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/13/2012

A Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 enhancement for a prior drug conviction is not subject to the one-third limit of Penal Code section 1170.1. Appellant was convicted of several offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 22 years in state prison. The term included a drug offense plus an enhancement pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2. The consecutive penalty for the drug offense was calculated at one-third the middle term pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), with the drug enhancement imposed to run full-term consecutive, for an additional three years. …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Solis
Case #: C063851
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/13/2012

The legal standard for imposing full consecutive sentences where multiple sex offenses against the same victim occur on "separate occasions" pursuant to Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) is not unconstitutionally vague. Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) provides that in determining whether crimes against a single victim were committed on separate occasions, the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect on his actions and nevertheless resumed the sexually assaultive behavior. Appellant contended that the legal standard for finding that offenses were committed on "separate…

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

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…

View Full Summary