Skip to content
Name: People v. Shaw
Case #: C043228
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/15/2004
Subsequent History: 12/15/04 revw. den.

The imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the proscription of Apprendi and Blakely where the basis for that sentencing choice is supported by the express findings of the jury verdicts. Here, appellant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault, three counts of discharging a firearm, plus numerous enhancements. The offenses arose from a drive-by shooting of seven people, where appellant was the actual shooter. On appeal, he contended that Blakely precluded the imposition of consecutive unstayed sentences because the trial court determined that the offenses involved different objectives and different victims.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sample
Case #: C044445
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/13/2004
Subsequent History: Rehrg den. 9/28/04; Rev. gr. 12/1/04: S128561

Because appellant did not raise an Apprendi objection in the trial court to the imposition of the upper term and the imposition of consecutive terms, and factors used in imposing the upper term and consecutive sentencing were uncontested at trial and supported by overwhelming evidence, he was barred from raising the claim of Apprendi/Blakely error. Further, his contentions fail on the merits. Apprendi and Blakely do not apply to California's consecutive sentencing scheme, and imposition of the upper term here was harmless beyond a reasonable…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ochoa
Case #: D042215
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/02/2004
Subsequent History: mod. 122 CA4th 823c; Rev. GRANTED 11/17/04: S128417

Appellant was charged with rape and several other sex offenses against the victim, Maria. When Maria testified at trial, her testimony began to conflict with her prior statements to police and her preliminary hearing testimony. The trial court advised Maria of her Fifth Amendment privileges and she declined to testify further. Maria's prior statements and preliminary hearing testimony were admitted at trial. On appeal, following appellant's conviction for the offenses, he argued that the trial court violated his right to confrontation by admitting the prior statements, and violated his right to due process by giving a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vonner
Case #: B169476
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 08/16/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 10/20/04 pending Black (S126182)

Blakely v. Washington does not impact a sentencing court's imposition of a full consecutive sentence for an enumerated violent sex offense under Penal Code section 667.6, subd. (c). In this case, the trial court imposed a full consecutive sentence pursuant to section 667.6, subd. (c), on a violation of section 288, subd. (b)(1) in addition to the sentence for a 288, subd.(a) violation, because the acts were on different occasions. Section 667.6, subd.(c) does not require a finding by the trier of fact or the trial court that the offenses occurred on separate occasions. Blakely is inapposite…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Casper
Case #: S114285
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/03/2004

In sentencing a defendant for multiple counts, only some of which are subject to a strike enhancement, the court must impose consecutive terms for all felony counts, even those not subject to strike enhancements. The Court first noted that the terms of the Three Strikes law require consecutive sentences whenever a defendant with one or more qualifying convictions is convicted of multiple serious or violent felonies not committed on the same occasion and not arising from the same set of operative facts. Next, the Court noted that the portions of the Three Strikes law requiring consecutive sentences apply…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hill
Case #: A100958
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/28/2004

Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), gives a court discretion to impose one-third the upper term for an enhancement to a subordinate offense. While section 1170.1 requires that the consecutive subordinate term for a substantive offense be one-third the middle term prescribed for that offense, that section states that the term for a subordinate enhancement be "one third of the term imposed for any specific enhancements applicable to those subordinate offenses." Thus, the sentencing court did not err in imposing a term of one-third the upper term for an enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bradley
Case #: B154734
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 07/28/2003

Appellant was convicted as an accomplice to attempted murder and second-degree robbery where she participated as the "bait" to entice a casino customer to leave the casino so her accomplices could rob him. The attempted murder charge was based on a shooting of the victim by the accomplices, which was not part of the original "plan." On appeal, appellant challenged the consecutive sentencing on the convictions, arguing that it was a violation of Penal Code section 654 to impose consecutive sentences on an aider and abettor for two offenses arising out of a single criminal transaction where the aider…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Groves
Case #: A098585
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/20/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was resentenced following an earlier appeal to 42 years to life in state prison for two counts each of forcible oral copulation, kidnap, and carjacking. On appeal he contended that the trial court erred by imposing a full consecutive term for the second count of oral copulation without a jury finding that the offenses occurred on separate occasions. The appellate court here affirmed the sentence. The specific fact of whether multiple offenses against the same victim occurred on separate occasions is not an element of the offense, and does not come into play until the defendant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garza
Case #: C039029
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/14/2003
Subsequent History: None

Full consecutive sentences for forcible oral copulation, rape, and forcible digital penetration were required under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) because the crimes involved the same victim on separate occasions in this fact specific case. Appellant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect on his actions before resuming the different types of sexual assaults. Additionally, each of those counts were subject to full 10-year enhancements for personal use of a firearm under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). First, as to the forcible oral copulation count, it was the principal term of the determinate term portion…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garza
Case #: C039029
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/31/2002
Subsequent History: 1/17/03 Rehrg. granted & case depublished; 4/14/03 mod. opn. issued at 107 Cal.App.4th 1081

Appellant was convicted of 18 felony counts for one sexual assault, and the jury also found that appellant personally used a firearm on all the counts. Appellant was sentenced to 54 years and eight months to life in state prison, which sentence included consecutive sentences on 3, 7, and 15 under section 667.6, subdivision (d). (Count 3, 7, and 15 were for forcible oral copulation, forcible digital penetration, and rape. The court imposed consecutive aggravated terms of eight years plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement.) On appeal, appellant challenged the consecutive sentencing on those counts.…

View Full Summary