Consecutive/Concurrent
Category > Consecutive/Concurrent
Updated 3/6/2024The trial court had discretion to sentence a serious or violent felony offender concurrently to his or her current serious or violent conviction if they arose on the same occasion. Following Proposition 36, the trial court has discretion to sentence a serious and violent offender concurrently to his or her current serious or violent felony convictions when those felonies were committed on the same occasion and arose out of the same set of operative facts. Those serious or violent felonies must then be sentenced consecutively to the sentences for nonserious and nonviolent convictions.id: 26508
Updated 3/6/2024Following Prop 36, trial courts retain discretion to impose concurrent sentences in cases where there are current convictions for more than one violent felony. In People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, the court clarified that trial courts had discretion under the statutory scheme then in place to impose concurrent sentences in cases where there are current convictions for more than one violent felony. Hendrix remains valid after Proposition 36, which made changes to the parallel initiative version of the three strikes law.id: 26656
Updated 2/4/2024The possibility of appellate relief as to one or more counts was not a valid reason for imposing consecutive sentences. The trial court erred in its reasoning for imposing consecutive life terms when it emphasized the possibility of appellate relief as to one or more of the counts.id: 27300
The trial court’s failure to realize it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence on the dissuasion count required remand.Penal Code section 1170.15 requires a full term sentence under certain conditions, including where a person is convicted of a felony and also convicted of dissuading a witness from testifying about that felony. In that case the court must impose the full term rather than one-third the mid-term for the second felony. However, section 1170.15 only applies if the trial court first determines it would impose a consecutive sentence on the dissuasion count. Since the trial court didn’t realize it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence on the dissuasion count, the matter was remanded for resentencing. id: 24610
The trial court had discretion to impose concurrent terms for the gang-related robbery convictions.The trial court erred in finding the gang-related robbery convictions required mandatory consecutive sentences. Trial courts have discretion under Penal Code section 669 to impose concurrent sentences for gang-related offenses punishable under the alternative penalty provisions of section 186.22, subd.(b)(4).id: 24472
A term cannot be both consecutive and stayed simultaneously because the two are mutually exclusive.The one-third-the-midterm rule of Penal Code section 1170.1, subd.(a) only applies to a consecutive sentence, not a sentence stayed under section 654. A stayed sentence cannot be consecutive to a principle sentence.id: 21238
Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on an aider and abettor who intended a single offense and whose liability for the second was predicated on the natural and probable consequence doctrine.Defendant was convicted as an aider and abettor of robbery and attempted murder. She intended only to aid and abet the robbery. The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the offenses which arose out of a single transaction where she intended only one offense and her liability for the second offense depended upon it being a natural and probable consequence of the first.id: 17553
Imposition of a state term consecutive with a federal term was a sentence choice requiring a statement of reasons.Appellant was a federal prisoner who, while awaiting transfer, escaped from county jail and committed a burglary. The imposition of a state term of imprisonment consecutive to a federal term constituted a sentencing choice requiring a statement of reasons under Penal Code 1170(c).id: 13716
Trial court committed harmless error in failing to articulate facts supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences.The trial court failed to articulate supporting facts, and thus incorrectly relied on the presence of multiple victims, cruelty, and the victim's youth in imposing consecutive sentences on some of the challenged counts. However, since the court articulated several concededly valid factors supporting imposition of all the consecutive terms and expressly considered the only mitigating factor, remand was unnecessary.id: 13722
Full, consecutive misdemeanor terms may not be imposed in juvenile cases.Penal code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), provides in part that sentences which run consecutively to the principal term must be set at one-third of the middle term applicable to the particular offense in question. This limitation is applicable to juvenile proceedings in which the minor is found to have committed multiple misdemeanor offenses.id: 11664
Court erred in failing to state reasons for imposing the determinate sentence consecutive to the indeterminate sentence.The trial court erred in failing to state reasons for imposing the determinate sentence consecutive to the indeterminate sentence of twenty five years to life. A statement of reasons was required under Penal Code section 1170. The error required remand where it was coupled with a second sentencing error and the record showed a mitigating factor.id: 13709
Absent a determination by the trial court, misdemeanor counts are deemed to run concurrently with each other.Since the trial court never indicated whether the sentences on the misdemeanor counts were to be served concurrently or consecutively with respect to each other, under Penal Code section 669, they must be deemed concurrent.id: 16198
Matter remanded where the court imposed the felony term consecutive to the misdemeanor because it erroneously believed it was required to do so.The trial court erred in finding it was required by law to impose a consecutive term on the felony count. Since the sentencing choice was based on a misunderstanding of the law, the matter was remanded for an informed decision.id: 16199
Consecutive sentences under section 1170.15 are only required if the dissuasion of a witness involved the present underlying felony.Penal Code section 1170.15 provides for full term consecutive sentences when a defendant is convicted of a felony, and also convicted of dissuading or attempting to dissuade a witness to the first felony from reporting or giving testimony regarding the first felony. It does not apply unless the testimony or reporting with which the defendant tried to interfere related to the first felony.id: 16490
Updated 2/26/2024The trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences where defendant was “already serving” his sentence for probation violation in the county jail.Defendant argued the trial court erred when it refused to consider applying, under former Penal Code section 667, subd.(c)(8), concurrent sentences for his probation violation cases. However, defendant was “already serving” a sentence in the case because he was in the custody of the sheriff at the county jail, and was committed to the CDCR at the time of his sentencing in this case.id: 26382
Updated 2/26/2024The trial court erred by failing to impose a consecutive sentence for failure to register as a sex offender even though it arose from the same facts as the serious/violent counts. Defendant was convicted of kidnapping to commit a sex act (count one), assault with intent to commit a sex offense (count two) and failure to register as a sex offender (count three). The trial court had discretion to impose a concurrent term for count two given that the offense were committed against the victim on the same occasion. However, the court erred by failing to impose a consecutive sentence as to count three, the failure to register because it was a nonviolent/nonserious offense even though it was committed on the same occasion.id: 26386
Updated 2/23/2024Consecutive sentences were proper for defendant who threw the victim around the apartment and then prevented her from leaving.The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive rather than concurrent terms. The court could rationally find separate acts meriting punishment where defendant threw the victim around the apartment (injury on a cohabitant) and then placed his hand over her mouth to keep her from responding to police and preventing her from leaving the apartment (false imprisonment).id: 26893
Updated 2/22/2024The Riverside Superior Court lacked the authority to impose concurrent terms for crimes committed in prison. In 2010, defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison following a burglary conviction in Los Angeles. In 2011, he pled guilty to in the Riverside Superior Court to drug offenses committed in prison. The court dismissed a strike prior and said the eight year term would run concurrent to any other sentence he was serving. However, the court lacked the authority to impose concurrent terms under Penal Code section 667 (c)(8), because the law treats in prison offenses differently. Consecutive sentences were required for the Los Angeles and Riverside cases.id: 26959
Updated 2/22/2024The trial court did not have discretion to impose concurrent sentences on the two convictions for assault with a semiautomatic firearm.The trial court did not have discretion to impose concurrent sentences on the two convictions for assault with a semiautomatic firearm. Prop 36 eliminated a trial court’s discretion to impose concurrent sentences on convictions for multiple serious or violent felonies.id: 27019
Updated 2/4/2024Consecutive sentences were proper where defendant burglarized five buildings on a single property.Defendant was convicted of five counts of burglary for entering five different buildings on the same property one night. She argued consecutive sentences were improper because the burglaries were part of a singular course of conduct. However, defendant’s intent for each act of theft was distinct, and consecutive sentences were proper.id: 27295
Any improper reasons for imposing a consecutive term were harmless where there were valid reasons to impose an aggravated term but the court imposed the middle term.The trial court imposed the middle term on the primary count after defendant pled guilty to certain sex offenses. Defendant argued the court erred by stating improper reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence on the remaining count. Assuming the stated reasons were improper, any error was harmless where there were valid factors the court could have used to impose the upper term on count one but did not.id: 25277
The sentencing court is not required to order the CDCR to perform its legal duty to make the prisoner available so that if a foreign jurisdiction will take him, they can gain the benefit of concurrent sentences. Defendant argued sentencing judges, in cases where the state sentence is ordered to run concurrently with a foreign sentence, must issue an order directing the CDCR to comply with its statutory duty to make the prisoner available for transfer to the foreign jurisdiction . However, the sentencing judge is not required to order the CDCR to perform its obligation, the prisoner can resort to administrative review in the prison system, and ultimately review in the courts by way of a habeas corpus petition.id: 25214
A full consecutive term for a misdemeanor was authorized for the sentence imposed under the Realignment Act.Defendant was convicted of both felony and misdemeanor resisting arrest. The punishment for the Penal Code section 148, subd.(a)(1) violation includes a jail term not to exceed one year. The court imposed a one year jail term to run consecutive to the felony term, but defendant argued that under section 1170.1, subd.(a) the authorized term was one-third of that term — four months. However, the one-third the mid term limitation applies only to consecutive felony terms. A different interpretation is not required where the sentence was imposed under section 1170, subd. (h).id: 24750
The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences for receiving a stolen ATM card and using it over two hours later.The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for receiving the stolen ATM card, and identity theft where the card was used more than two hours after it was stolen 20 miles away and after the defendant had an ample opportunity for reflection.id: 23812
The trial court did not err by imposing the consecutive sentences for the three counts of aggravated battery by “gassing” prison guards.Defendant was convicted of three counts of battery by gassing where he spit at three prison guards. The trial court did not err by finding that consecutive sentences were required by Penal Code section 4501.5. The fact that defendant was sentenced under the three strikes law did not change the result.id: 23728
The trial court did not err by reimposing a sentence to run consecutively to a federal term after remand for resentencing in both counts.Defendant committed many armed bank robberies in Hawaii and California. In 1992 he was sentenced to an 8 to 20 year prison term in Hawaii. In 1992, he was sentenced in federal court to an additional 27 years for other robberies. In 1993, he was sentenced to 20 years for still more robberies in California, with that sentence to run consecutively to the sentences in Hawaii and the federal court. After some appellate success in the federal and California courts, he was resentenced in California to again serve his term consecutive to the federal term. Because the federal judgment was prior to the California judgment, the trial court retained the authority to resentence defendant to the consecutive term.id: 23235
Defendant forfeited his claim that the trial court erred in failing to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. Defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. He claimed his failure to object at sentencing did not forfeit the argument because the court when stating its tentative decision gave reasons for certain choices but not consecutive sentences. However, to the extent the court did not articulate at that time that the aggravating factors supported both imposition of the upper term and consecutive sentences, it was incumbent on trial counsel to seek clarification. id: 22282
The trial court had discretion to impose consecutive terms where a single shot was fired at two victims. Defendant was convicted of the attempted murder of two people in a car into which he fired a single shot. He argued the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences since there was only one act. However, the court had discretion to impose consecutive terms where there were multiple victims.id: 21372
Because there were multiple victims, section 654 did not preclude concurrent terms where the attempted murder and shooting into a building convictions were based on the same act. Defendant fired two shots into the victim’s house and was convicted of attempted premeditated murder of the victim who he had previously threatened to kill, and assault with a firearm on the victim’s children who were also likely at home. He was also convicted of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. He argued the sentence for the latter offense should have been stayed rather than run concurrent to the attempted murder conviction. However, the concurrent term was proper since there is a multiple victim exception to Penal Code section 654 which allows separate punishment where crimes are part of a single episode. id: 20953
The trial court had the discretion to impose a concurrent sentence for the firearm possession count where there was evidence that he used the same firearm in the commission of all counts.The trial court had the discretion, as it did, to impose a concurrent indeterminate term (under the three strikes law ) in count three, the felon in possession of a firearm count, where defendant was found to have used the firearm in the commission of every other count.id: 20654
Defendant who was convicted as an aider and abettor was subject to consecutive sentences for the attempted murder of multiple victims even though he arguably engaged in only a single unlawful act. Defendant was convicted as an aider and abettor of three counts of unpremeditated attempted murder among other things. The naming of separate counts was a circumstance on which the trial court could rely to impose consecutive sentences. Moreover, defendant who was convicted as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and arguably engaged in only a single unlawful act was nevertheless subject to consecutive sentences because of the wrongful conduct that resulted in harm to multiple victims. id: 20611
Blakely does not require a jury determination on the issue of whether to impose consecutive sentences.Defendant argued that based upon the holding of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 124 S.Ct. 2531, he was entitled to have a jury determine whether consecutive sentences may be imposed. However, neither Blakely nor Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, purport to create a jury trial right to the determination of whether to impose consecutive sentences.id: 18012
Six years worth of consecutive subordinate terms was not improper where four of those six years represented terms for residential burglaries.The court added six years worth of consecutive subordinate terms to defendant's principal term: 16 months each (four years) for three residential burglaries, and one year sentences for each of two vehicle thefts. Defendant argued the six additional years violated Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision(a) which imposes a five year limit on the total consecutive subordinate terms for non-violent felonies. However, section 1170.95, subdivision (a) increases the five-year limit to ten years for residential burglaries. Defendant argued it was improper to exceed the five year limit by adding the consecutive terms for the residential burglaries with the other two terms. However, the increased limits on subordinate terms applies to all convictions for residential burglaries regardless of whether a defendant is convicted of other offenses to which the five year limit of section 1170.1 applies.id: 13719
Cunningham does not require that a jury rather than the court find facts that support the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses. Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely was not violated by the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences on all counts. The determination regarding
consecutive sentences is a sentencing decision made by the judge after the jury has made factual findings necessary to subject the defendant to the statutory maximum sentence on each offense,
and does not implicate the defendant's right to jury trial on facts that are the functional equivalent of elements of an offense.id: 19762
The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences based upon the fact that the charged attempted murders involved separate victims. Defendants were convicted of one count of murder and four counts of attempted murder. They argued the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on the latter counts due to the fact that each count involved "a separate victim and separate conduct." However, the naming of separate victims in separate counts is a circumstance on which the court may rely in imposing consecutive sentences, and this was true for the shooter and the aider and abettor.id: 19740
The consecutive sentences did not violate Blakely where they were based on the jury's verdict in finding separate assaults against different victims, rather than independent findings by the court.Defendant argued that the factual determination required by Penal Code section 654, that the offenses involved multiple objectives, must be made by the jury, not the trial court. He further argued the decision to impose consecutive sentences violated Blakely because the decision rested on findings of fact beyond those necessarily found by the jury's verdict. However, the information charged separate assaults for each victim and each verdict returned by the jury found that defendant committed an assault against a different named individual. Because the imposition of consecutive sentences was based upon the jury's verdict rather than the court's independent findings of fact, the sentence did not violate Blakely.id: 18103
Mendocino County court did not err in revoking defendant's probation following a San Diego conviction and ordering the San Diego sentence to run consecutively with the Mendocino sentence.Defendant was on probation following a conviction in Mendocino County. He was then convicted of auto theft in San Diego. The Mendocino court revoked his probation and imposed the stayed prison term. It then ordered that the San Diego and Mendocino sentences run consecutively. Defendant argued the court violated Penal Code section 669 by ordering his San Diego County sentence to run consecutively to his Mendocino County sentence. While this was true earlier, the 1978 amendment to section 669 did away with this prohibition. The Mendocino County court properly imposed consecutive sentences pursuant to section 669.id: 16432
An indeterminate life sentence can run consecutive to a sentence arising from an independent count.Defendant appealed his Fresno County sentence claiming a life sentence imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.7 cannot run consecutively with other life sentences or any other sentence. He received a consecutive sentence for his Fresno case which arose and was charged separately from the three earlier sentenced cases. The fact that any of the sentences entailed a life term pursuant to section 667.7 did not prevent the proper imposition of consecutive terms. Nothing in the statute or legislative history suggests an intent to prohibit consecutive terms based on independent counts. The court did not err in imposing the instant sentence as a term consecutive to the earlier imposed sentences.id: 13701
An indeterminate life sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute may not be ordered to run consecutive to a determinate term based on enhancements.Appellant was sentenced to state prison for 20 years to life as a habitual offender pursuant to Penal Code section 667.7. Consecutive terms totaling six years were added for two alleged enhancements. However, an indeterminate life sentence imposed pursuant to section 667.7 may not be ordered to run consecutive to a determinate term of imprisonment for a sentence enhancement.id: 13702
Consecutive sentences based upon multiple victims for the two vehicular manslaughter counts were proper where the offenses were transactionally related.Defendant pled guilty to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter. He argued that using the multiple victims factor for imposing consecutive sentences was improper because the court had used up all of the aggravating factors listed in the Probation report to arrive at the mid term for the killing of one victim. However, because the crimes were transactionally related the consecutive sentences were proper.id: 13703
Consecutive sentences for misdemeanors that did not invoke the limitations under section 1170.1 (used for felonies) did not deprive appellant of equal protection.Appellant argued his lengthy composite term violated equal protection, because his total consecutive misdemeanor term exceeded the maximum sentence he could have received had he been sentenced pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1 for an equal number of non-violent felonies. However, because he is not similarly situated with that class of persons treated as felons, his sentencing did not violate his right to equal protection of the laws.id: 13704
Consecutive sentences for several break-ins occurring on the same evening were proper.Defendant was convicted of several burglaries, all of which occurred during the same night. While the felonious intent in each instance was the same, this did not make the various violations incidental to each other or to one primary criminal objective. Thus, even though the violations were part of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct in that they occurred during one night, it was within the trial court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences. Moreover, the court was not required to group the convictions into three categories, to wit, building break-ins, vehicle break-ins, and grand theft auto.id: 13705
Consecutive sentences were proper where defendant committed violent acts against different victims on the same occasion or close in time.Defendant was convicted of several robberies and related offenses. He argued that because the crimes were committed over a short time span and most counts arose out of a few incidents, the court erred in finding so many separate offenses to justify consecutive sentencing. Instead, he claimed, the court should have followed the sentencing criterion set out in rule 425(a)(3) of the California Rules of Court: The crimes were committed at different times and places rather than being committed so closely in time as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior. First, the provisions of rule 425 are guidelines, not rules courts are bound to apply in every case. Moreover, it has long been the rule that acts of violence against different victims may be charged and punished separately even though they occurred on the same occasion.id: 13706
Consecutive sentences were proper despite the failure to state reasons where the crimes involved separate acts of violence and a vulnerable victim.Defendant argued the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for imposing sentences consecutive to his death sentence required remand for resentencing. However, the record supports the consecutive sentences where the crimes involved separate acts of violence and there were several aggravating factors including victim vulnerability and planning involved.id: 13707
Court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for the second degree murder under the aiding and abetting theory and ADW.Defendant was convicted of second degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory, and assault with a deadly weapon. He argued the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences because it treated a single act of violence, the stabbing of the victim, as separate acts of violence. He claimed he should not be sentenced consecutively for a separate act of violence which he committed vicariously. However, it would be inconsistent to allow defendant to be convicted of murder on an aiding and abetting theory while refusing to classify this as a separate act of violence within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 425(a)(2)id: 13708
Court had discretion to impose consecutive sentences where a drunk driver killed four people in a single collision.Appellant was convicted of four counts of second degree murder after killing four people while driving drunk on a highway. The trial court sentenced him to two consecutive terms on the murder counts and concurrent terms on the remaining counts. The result was a prison term of 30 years to life. He argued the consecutive sentences were improper because he had committed a single act of colliding with the homicide victims. However, multiple punishment is proper when a single act of violence, including drunk driving, injures or kills multiple victims. Under the circumstances the court had the discretion to impose the consecutive sentences.id: 13710
Current charges may be considered in determining a defendant's violent history for consecutive sentence purposes.Defendant was convicted of two counts of assault. The trial judge based the consecutive sentences on his finding that appellant demonstrated a very definite pattern of violence . . . through his history, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 421(b)(1) and 425(b). Defendant argued that it was inappropriate to consider the instant offenses in determining whether a pattern of violence exists. However, nothing in the language of the rules requires that the judge ignore that the instant offenses and defendant's two prior sex crimes, when combined with his current charged assaults, constituted a pattern of violence which justified consecutive sentences.id: 13711
Defendant's failure to object constituted a waiver of the court's error in failing to state reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.Defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to state reasons for the imposition of consecutive sentences. However, defendant's contention was waived by the failure to have interposed a contemporaneous objection to the apparent noncompliance with the sentencing rules in superior court.id: 13712
Failure to state reasons for consecutive sentence was not prejudicial where it was not reasonably probable the sentence would have differed if reasons were given.Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery. The trial court erred in failing to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. However, the correct test for harmless error for sentencing errors in non-capital cases is that announced in <i>People v. Watson</i> (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. Given defendant's long criminal history, his poor performances on probation, the escalating seriousness of his offenses and the court's observations that defendant was out of control and a danger to the community, it was not likely that defendant would have received a different sentence if the reasons had been stated.id: 13713
Failure to state reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence was harmless where appellant had already been sentenced to an upper sentence for the earlier crime.The trial court erred in failing to state reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence for an unrelated theft offense. The error was harmless given that appellant had already been sentenced to an upper term for the earlier crime, that the two cases were based on incidents occurring months apart, that appellant's sentence for theft had been drastically reduced, and that the judge had obvious reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.id: 13714
Failure to state reasons to support consecutive sentence is harmless absent a reasonable possibility that the statement would have altered the court's decision.The trial court erred in failing to state reasons for imposition of the consecutive term. The error was harmless because the second clearly showed at least one factor supporting the sentencing choice and, therefore, there was no reasonable possibility that a statement of reasons would have altered the trial judge's conclusion or revealed reversible error.id: 13715
Imposition of consecutive terms for the misdemeanors was not improper.Defendant was sentenced to a prison term following his felony conviction and the court imposed a consecutive one-year term for the two misdemeanor convictions. He argued the imposition of the full consecutive terms for the misdemeanors violated his right to equal protection and the sentencing provisions of Penal Code section 1170.1. However, a defendant serving a misdemeanor term consecutive to a prison term is not similarly situated to a defendant serving consecutive prison terms. Moreover, the language of section 1170.1, subdivision (a) precludes its application to sentences for misdemeanors even though defendant is serving a prison term for a felony.id: 13717
The court did not err in failing to find a single period of aberrant behavior.The court stated it was selecting consecutive sentences for the three offenses because all of these cases are separate, distinct, and individual crimes. Appellant argued the crimes were committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior. However, the two burglaries and the robbery were each committed at a different location against a different victim. The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find a single period of aberrant behavior.id: 13720
The existence of multiple victims of a group of crimes against individual persons justified the imposition of consecutive terms.Defendant was convicted of robbery, attempted robbery, and false imprisonment. He argued that the counts for which consecutive terms were imposed did not involve separate offenses separate victims or separate losses because the offenses took place at the same time and place and no single count charged the defendant with an offense against more than one victim. Instead he argued the crimes were part of a single episode and multiple victims could not be used to justify consecutive terms. However, the existence of multiple victims of a group of crimes against individual persons is a factor which makes the group of offenses distinctively worse and therefore justifies imposition of consecutive terms.id: 13721
Where defendant was reimprisoned following a parole violation imposition of a full consecutive term for the new battery was proper.While in prison in 1984, defendant committed a battery on a correctional officer within the meaning of Penal Code section 4501.5. He committed the same crime in the instant case while back in prison after violating parole on the earlier battery and argued that under section 1170.1, subdivision (c) only one-third the middle term of three years was authorized. However, because defendant was released on parole between the first and second in-prison offenses, subdivision (c) of section 1170.1 allowed the imposition of a full consecutive term, rather than one-third the middle term, for the second offense.id: 13723
Where sentences for new offenses are to be served consecutively, the greatest term will be the principal term and the others will be subordinate and will consist of one-third of the statutory middle term.This was defendant's second conviction of battery by an inmate on a non-inmate punishable by a term of two, three or four years (Penal Code section 4501.5.) He had been convicted of the same offense in 1986 and had been sentenced to a term of two years, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was then serving. The instant court erred in sentencing him to another consecutive term of four years. The court should have designated the sentence on the current offense as the principal term, and reimposed the 1986 sentence as a subordinate term of one-third the midterm.id: 13724
The trial court did not err in imposing a full consecutive term after revocation of probation based upon the commission of new crimes.Defendant argued the trial court erred in imposing a full term of imprisonment following revocation of his probation to be served consecutive to the term imposed on the new offense. He claimed the consecutive term should be calculated at one-third of the middle base-term pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a). However, the court did not err in imposing a full consecutive term for the burglary upon revocation of probation for that offense. Where probation is revoked following a conviction of new crimes, application of section 1170.1, subdivision (a), as urged by defendant would preclude a court from either pronouncing judgement for any time within the longest period for which the person might have been sentenced for the earlier offense or offenses, or ordering that the judgment previously pronounced be in full force and effect."id: 13654
Defendant who admitted exploding a single device killing two people was properly convicted of two counts and consecutive sentences were proper.Defendant argued that his conviction and the imposition of consecutive sentences on two counts of exploding a destructive device with intent to commit murder was erroneous. He claimed that since he exploded a single device, he committed the actus reus of the crime but once, and the fact that he may have intended to murder two victims by exploding the device did not give rise to two violations of Penal Code section 12308. However, the prosecution correctly charged defendant with the commission of a violent act directed against two victims and imposition of the consecutive sentences was proper.id: 10649
Lewd acts on minors are violent felonies for purposes of the five year subordinate term limit.Defendant was convicted of eight counts of lewd acts on minors under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). He was sentenced to the upper term on one count as the principal term and received consecutive terms stayed to one-third of the mid-term of six years on the other counts for a total sentence of 20 years. He argued section 288, subdivision (a) does not define a violent felony which falls outside the five year limit for subordinate terms established in section 1170.1. However section 667.5 subdivision (c)(6) expressly provides the term violent felonies includes lewd acts on children as defined in section 288. The sentence was therefore proper.id: 9970
Consecutive sentences are mandatory where defendant has been convicted of multiple violent crimes against multiple victims on a single occasion and a prior strike is found true.Defendant was convicted of the premeditated attempted murders of three victims on a single occasion. He also admitted a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. The trial court erred in imposing concurrent sentences for two of the attempted murder counts. Where a defendant has been convicted of crimes of violence against multiple victims and an allegation of a prior felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) has been found to be true, consecutive sentencing for the violent crimes is mandatory pursuant to section 667, subdivision (c).id: 9430
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245