Error and/or relief
The defendant was convicted of three charges, including two counts of conspiracy. Under the circumstances in this case, he could be convicted of only a single count of conspiracy. We reverse the conviction on count 3.
First Holding:
The defendant was charged with explosion causing mayhem and great bodily injury in count 1, conspiracy to discharge a firearm from a motor vehicle in count 2), and conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm in count 3. Both conspiracy convictions both convictions arose from a single agreement and the single criminal objective of shooting the victim.
A defendant may be convicted of only a single count of conspiracy based on a single agreement. It is well settled that the essence of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement, and thus it is the number of the agreements (not the number of the victims or number of statutes violated) that determine the number of the conspiracies. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement or confederation of the conspirators to commit one or more unlawful acts. The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects.
Authority:
People v. Meneses (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1648, 1669
People v. Lopez (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1557 [One agreement gives rise to only a single offense, despite any multiplicity of objects]
Braverman v. United States (1942) 317 U.S. 49, 53
Second Holding:
Where a defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved. The evidence presented in this case supports only that there was a single agreement to commit one shooting of the victim.
Authority:
People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1251
Third Holding:
That the single shooting may have violated two separate criminal statutes is immaterial.
Authority:
People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 965 [noting that a single agreement to commit acts which, if completed, would constitute more than one substantive crime, is but a single conspiracy]
People v. Meneses (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1648, 1669 [Whether the object of a single agreement is to commit one or many crimes, it is in either case that agreement which constitutes the conspiracy which the statute punishes]
Fourth Holding:
If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term. Here, because the maximum punishment for count 2 is seven years and the maximum punishment for count 3 is four years , count 3, having the lesser maximum term, must be reversed.
Authority:
PEN 182(a)