Skip to content
Name: People v. Valdez
Case #: B222463
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/05/2011
Subsequent History: opn. mod. on 4/25/2011

Under the "One Strike" law, the court must impose a life term when defendant has been convicted in the present case of committing the requisite offense against more than one victim; the statute contains no limitation of terms in a particular case. Appellant was convicted of several counts of Penal Code 288, subdivision (a) against three victims. As to each offense, the jury also found true the One Strike provision pursuant to Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (b), providing for the enhanced punishment where defendant has been convicted in the present case of committing an offense specified in subdivision (c)…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bui
Case #: A123907
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 02/15/2011

A unanimity instruction is not required to determine which of several gun shots is the basis for an attempted murder conviction when the shots are closely connected in time. Appellant fired three shots at a homeowner during the course of a home-invasion robbery committed to steal money from a safe known to be inside. When appellant pointed the gun at the victim, the victim tried to push the hand holding the gun, and the gun discharged. The victim was hit and fell to the floor. Appellant then fired two more shots in rapid succession.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanders
Case #: B206569
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/22/2010

An indeterminate term for an enhancement does not merge with the determinate offense thereby making the entire sentence controlled by the indeterminate sentencing law. Appellant was convicted of, inter alia, two counts of attempted murder without premeditation (Pen. Code, § 664, subd. (a)) and corresponding firearm-use enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court imposed a 7-year sentence on count 1, plus 25-to-life for the firearm-use enhancement. The court also imposed a full consecutive 7-year term on count two and 25-to-life for the remaining firearm-use enhancement. Appellant argued the sentence on count 2 should have been calculated under the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leon
Case #: B211679
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/29/2010

A single gunshot fired into a vehicle with three occupants is insufficient to establish intent to kill all the occupants under a "kill zone" theory. Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder, as well as accompanying firearm and gang enhancements, and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 145 years to life. Evidence presented at trial depicted appellant as a gang member, with the victims being members of a rival gang. While traveling in a vehicle in his gang's territory, appellant came upon a vehicle occupied by the victims and fired a single shot…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Goodliffe
Case #: C058588
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/14/2009

The trial court erred by imposing a full consecutive term for commission of lewd acts on a child where the crimes did not involve the same victim. Appellant pled guilty to a lewd act upon a child who is 14 or 15 years old by a person who is at least 10 years older (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1); count 1), two lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 5 and 10), one forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cantrell
Case #: E045149
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/05/2009

The court corrected an unauthorized sentence where the sentence could not be consecutive as well as stayed. Cantrell was sentenced to four years for count one, residential burglary, doubled to eight years because of a prior strike. The court also sentenced him to one year consecutively for a prior prison term, for a total of nine years on count one. On count two, the court orally pronounced the judgment as one year consecutive doubled, stayed pursuant to section 654. The minute order and the abstract of judgment reflected that the low term was imposed and stayed.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Quintanilla
Case #: B203825
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/22/2009

Under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision(c), which authorizes imposition of a full consecutive sentence for specified sexual assaults, the court must identify criteria justifying the harsher sentence. Appellant was convicted of rape and forcible lewd and lascivious behavior on a child under the age of 14 years. The offenses occurred during a single incident. The court sentenced him to 15 years to life for the rape plus a full-term, three-year consecutive sentence for the lewd and lascivious conviction, finding the consecutive sentences appropriate because of the basis of appellant's previous sexual misconduct; the child's age in conjunction with her cordial…

View Full Summary
Name: Oregon v. Ice
Case #: 07-901
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 01/14/2009
Subsequent History: 129 S.Ct. 711; 172 L.Ed.2d 517

There is no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial for determination of facts permitting imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses. Declining to extend Apprendi (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466) and Blakely (Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296) to state consecutive sentencing schemes, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's statute that assigns to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to imposition of consecutive sentences for discrete offenses, as opposed to concurrent…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: B205182
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 11/04/2008

In cases where multiple indeterminate terms are imposed, neither Penal Code section 1170.1 nor any other statute requires that a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, sec. 667.5, subd. (b)) be applied only once. The enhancement cannot be imposed if it is also the subject of a mandatory prior serious felony enhancement (Pen. Code, sec. 667, subd. (a)); and if it is not imposed, the court must strike it pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. Appellant was convicted of numerous serious and non-serious felonies with accompanying serious felony and prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, secs. 667, subd. (a) and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Briones
Case #: B195452
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/09/2008

Where there is a single conspiracy to possess several kinds of drugs, a defendant can only be sentenced for a single offense of conspiracy. Appellant borrowed money from a friend to buy drugs. After he bought the drugs, he invited the friend to his motel room to see them. These acts resulted in appellant’s conviction for possession of heroin for sale, conspiracy to possess heroin for sale, possession of methamphetamine, and conspiracy to possess methamphetamine for sale. The court sentenced appellant to 25 to life for possessing heroin for sale, a concurrent term of 25 to…

View Full Summary