Skip to content
Name: People v. Martinez
Case #: C055549
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/23/2008

A defendant has no jury trial right to determination of factors justifying consecutive life sentences under Penal Code section 667.61. Appellant was convicted of torture, assaults, and sex offenses, with the jury finding true allegations as to the sex offenses that defendant inflicted torture, great bodily injury and used a weapon, so as to subject appellant to life terms under Penal Code section 667.61. Finding that the offenses occurred at separate times and occasions, the trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive 25-to-life terms for the forcible oral copulation and rape convictions. Relying on People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Figueroa
Case #: E041876
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/22/2008

For purposes of sentencing, Penal Code sections 667.6, subdivision (d) and 269 are not alternative sentencing schemes but, instead, are cumulative and require mandatory consecutive life terms if the crimes involve the same victim on separate occasions. Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault on a minor (Pen. Code, sec. 269, subd. (a)(1)) and sentenced to two fifteen-years-to-life terms. Relying on the rationale of People v. Jimenez (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 286, the appellate court rejected appellant’s argument that the mandatory consecutive provision of section 667.6, subdivision (d) did not apply to him and that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chavez
Case #: B185907
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/04/2008

A defendant acquitted by reason of insanity on certain crimes must first be committed to a state hospital before he can be transferred to state prison. Chavez committed two separate sets of offenses, and was convicted of all the counts arising from them. The jury found that Chavez was insane at the time he committed the offenses in April, but sane at the time he committed the offenses in November. He was sentenced to a total term of 20 years in state prison and 16 years commitment to a state mental hospital to be served after the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Andra
Case #: C053411
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/30/2007

Consecutive sentences were permissible where appellant had an opportunity to reflect and renew her intent between multiple crimes. Appellant used Brenda Baker's identity to obtain a credit card, and then later used that credit card to obtain a rental vehicle and drive it. She was convicted in count 13 with vehicle theft and in count 17 for identity theft. Later she used the same identity to open bank accounts, and fraudulently withdrew money from the accounts. She was convicted in count 11 of obtaining money by false pretenses, and in count 12 with identity theft. Appellant contended on appeal…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mosley
Case #: B195181
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/19/2007

There was sufficient evidence that appellant made criminal threats despite the fact that he was incarcerated in segregated housing. Mosley, a jail inmate, made threats to numerous deputies. On one day, he pulled out a razor blade and made a slashing motion, stating, "This is for Deputy Wargo." He was convicted of seven counts of making criminal threats, and one count of custodial possession of a weapon. The trial court selected count 1, the threat against Wargo, as the principal term. It then imposed full term consecutive sentences for counts 1 and 4. Mosley…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Tillotson
Case #: G035041
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/21/2007
Subsequent History: rev. granted 10/1707, S155385

The jury was correctly instructed on aiding and abetting with CALJIC 3.01. Appellant was tried on a 24-count information charging her with theft and controlled substance violations. The jury found her guilty on counts 1 through 9, 13, and 20 through 24. She was acquitted on counts 10 through 12 and 14 through 19. The trial court found true the enhancement charged on counts 4, 5, 20, 22, and 24 that she committed the crimes while on bail. She was sentenced to 14 years and four months in prison, with count 1 as the principal…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Diaz
Case #: B185735
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 04/25/2007

Resentencing was required where judge engaged in additional factfinding in order to find that aggravating factors justified the upper term. Appellant was convicted of multiple sex offenses. The trial court sentenced appellant to upper terms on three sex offense convictions, finding that the four factors in aggravation outweighed the one mitigating factor. It also imposed consecutive terms for two counts because the crimes were committed on separate occasions. While the case was pending on appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham, and the parties submitted letter briefs on the impact of that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hernandez
Case #: C053061
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/26/2007
Subsequent History: 5/9/07: Revw granted & hold pending Cunningham: S151549

As there is no presumption or other entitlement to concurrent sentences for multiple offenses, a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial for determination of factors utilized to justify consecutive sentences. Under Penal Code section 669 a defendant convicted of multiple offenses is entitled to the sentencing court's exercise of discretion but is not entitled to a particular result. Likewise, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.406(b)(5) requires the court to state its reasons for sentencing choices but does not create a presumption or entitlement to a particular…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Miller
Case #: H029672
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/28/2006

Appellant entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded no contest to one felony in each of three drug cases in exchange for an aggregate sentence of either six years of six years eight months. The length of the aggregate term was to be determined by the trial court at the time of sentencing. The trial court chose the longer sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1. On appeal, he contended that the trial court failed to exercise its sentencing discretion because the court erroneously determined that the longer aggregate sentence was required under section 1170.1.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lai
Case #: B165662
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 04/26/2006

For thefts of more than $100,000, but less than $500,000, a defendant may be punished by consecutive enhancements under both Penal Code sections 186.11, subdivision (a)(3), and section 12022.6, subdivision (a). The court must impose both terms, but stay execution of the term imposed under section 12022.6, subdivision (a). Therefore, appellant's case was remanded for resentencing where the court imposed a non-stayed two-year enhancement under section 12022.6, subdivision (a). Further, for non-probationary sentences, neither section 1202.4, subdivision (f) nor section 186.11, subdivision (d) permit restitution for losses caused by crimes for which the defendant was not convicted.…

View Full Summary