Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.
First Holding:
In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864
Second Holding:
Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. There is a multiple victim exception to section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.
Authority:
PEN 654
People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631
Third Holding:
The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.
In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.
Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143
People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737
People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]
Fourth Holding:
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.
(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.
First Holding:
In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864
Second Holding:
Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. There is a multiple victim exception to … section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.
Authority:
PEN 654
People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631
Third Holding:
The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.
In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.
Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143
People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737
People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]
Fourth Holding:
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.
(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Fifth Holding:
Add holding blurb here
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE
Sixth Holding:
Add holding blurb here
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE