Tag Archives: Unauthorized sentence

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000223

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Sentences for eight of his convictions, which the defendant served concurrently with his completed determinate term, should have been stayed under section 654. The court found the balance of the issues forfeited for lack of objection at the trial level.

First Holding:

A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices if the party did not object to the sentence at trial. The rule applies to cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 751

Second Holding:

In contrast to errors in exercising sentencing discretion, the waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3

Third Holding:

In general, a person may be convicted of, although not punished for, more than one crime arising out of the same act or course of conduct. In California, a single act or course of conduct by a defendant can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged. Section 954 generally permits multiple conviction. Section 654 is its counterpart concerning punishment. It prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or omission. When section 954 permits multiple conviction, but section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited. Imposition of concurrent sentences is not the correct method of implementing section 654, because a concurrent sentence is still punishment.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226–1227

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468

Sentencing

Case: 000216

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 50 years to life for the murders, plus a determinate sentence of 23 years, 4 months, which included a one-year term for burglary and a 16-month term for attempted robbery. The terms for the burglary and attempted robbery should have been stayed under section 654. The judgment is modified to stay the terms imposed for burglary and attempted robbery.

Holding:

The terms for the burglary and attempted robbery should have been stayed under section 654, which prohibits punishment for two crimes arising from a single, indivisible course of conduct. This means that if all of the crimes were merely incidental to or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating a single objective, the defendant may receive only one punishment.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000204

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The 25 years to life sentences on three counts violate constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws because the offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the statute under which they were imposed. The trial record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenses in the three counts occurred after the effective date of the statutory amendment increasing the penalty for the offenses.

First Holding:

The federal and state constitutions proscribe ex post facto laws. Both constitutions prohibit legislatures from retroactively increasing the punishment for a crime. The federal and state ex post facto laws are interpreted the same way.

Authority:

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 9

Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42–43

People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158

People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220

Second Holding:

Ex post facto principles have been applied to the One Strike law and its amendments. Where the ex post facto clauses apply, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Canales (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1230, 1259–1260

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256–262

People v. Riskin (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 234, 244–245

Third Holding:

An unauthorized sentence may also be corrected on appeal despite the absence of an objection below. A sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Fourth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, a remand and full resentencing is generally appropriate so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion following the changed circumstances. However, when the trial court imposes the maximum possible sentence, there is no need to remand the matter for resentencing. Where there are no sentencing choices to restructure, it is appropriate to modify the sentence on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893, 896 fn 15

People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 342

People v. Francis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 876, 887

Fifth Holding:

The one strike law includes a provision requiring consecutive sentences for some, but not all, of the offenses listed in section 667.61(c). The only crime for which the defendant was convicted is identified in section 667.61(c)(8) and therefore, defendant’s convictions do not implicate the mandatory sentencing provision in section 667.61(i). By implication, section 667.61(i) leaves the decision to impose consecutive or concurrent terms on the nonspecified offenses to the sentencing court’s discretion under section 669.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(i)

People v. Lopez (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 287, 291

People v. Valdez (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1524

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000200

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s sentence on two firearm enhancements and one possession of an explosive device should have been imposed and stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We modify the judgment accordingly.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

Third Holding:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective. We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses.

Authority:

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fourth Holding:

The sentences on each of three counts were based on his simultaneous possession of two completed assault rifles, and we assume that such possession can constitute two physical acts for the purposes of section 654. Even so, multiple punishment can be imposed consistent with section 654—on two of the three counts —only if substantial evidence in the record supports an implied finding that he had a separate objective in possessing one firearm versus the other. Our review of the record reveals no such evidence. Section 654 also prohibits multiple punishment for both possession of an explosive device and possession of ingredients to make an explosive device, because the explosives the defendant possessed were not actually capable of exploding, and thus identical evidence supported both counts. Both counts were based on the defendant’s possession of the ingredients in the box truck, at the same time and place, and under the same circumstances. Both counts were based on, essentially, the same course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 358 [suggesting simultaneous possession of different items of contraband’ are separate acts for purposes of section 654]

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fifth Holding:

Because it is apparent from the sentence imposed that the sentence would be little changed as a result of remand, in the interests of judicial economy, and given that the parties agree on this remedy, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentences on counts 5 and 6 rather than remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [authority to modify unauthorized sentence]

People v. Burns (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1184 [staying execution of the penalty imposed is the preferred remedy for section 654 error where the reduction in sentence would be relatively minor because in such cases, it would not serve the interests of justice or judicial economy to require remand]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [exercising authority to modify judgment to impose and stay sentence under section 654 rather than remand for resentencing that will not change defendant’s actual prison time]

Sentencing

Case 000198

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing three Life Without The Possiblity Of Parole (LWOP) sentences on each of the two murders, despite the jury having found true three special circumstances as to each murder.

Holding:

The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more special circumstances has been found to be true. Multiple true special circumstance findings do not justify additional punishment.

Authority:

PEN 190.2

People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 874 [defendant faced no additional punishment merely as a result of additional special circumstance true finding]