 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Munger4/14/2004
se the additional terms of imprisonment under either subdivision (a), (b), (c), or (d), but may not impose more than one of those terms for the same offense." (Stats.2000, ch. 919, § 1, pp. 5188-5189.)
Munger argues the Legislature's use of the singular article "an" in the phrase "shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of five years" [FN2] indicated the legislative intent that only one enhancement be imposed per charge regardless of the number of injured victims. We disagree; Munger reads this language out of context.
FN2. Although Munger quotes from the current version of section 12022.7, subdivision (b) in his opening brief, it is evident he is referring to the statute as it read at the time of the offense.
In construing a statute, courts do not consider statutory language in isolation; rather, courts look to the statute as a whole, taking into account each clause and section in context and harmonizing the provisions relating to the same subject matter. (People v. Andrade (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 351, 356.) In addition to the language Munger relies upon, section 12022.7, subdivision (b)--by incorporating subdivision (a)--provided that the enhancement applied when the defendant "personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person...." (Italics added.) When these two clauses are read together, it is clear that the Legislature intended to have an additional five-year enhancement imposed for all persons (other than accomplices) whom a defendant has injured to the extent that those persons are permanently paralyzed. Thus, if there are five victims who suffer permanent paralysis as a result of an injury personally inflicted by a defendant in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, five five-year enhancements must be imposed. Here, because there are two paralyzed victims--Laird and Flynn--the statutory language required the imposition of two five-year enhancements under section 12022.7, subdivision (b). (See People v. Arndt (1999) 76 Cal.App .4th 387, 399.) Our interpretation is in keeping with the principle that punishment should be commensurate with the number of victims. (See In re Tameka C. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 190, 196 ["An increased sentence measured by the risk of harm to multiple victims reflects a rational effort to deter such reprehensible behavior"].)
Contrary to Munger's arguments, the statutory language did not limit the number of section 12022.7, subdivision (b) enhancements to be imposed when there are multiple paralyzed victims. Munger's reliance on section 12022.7, subdivision (h)--"[t]he court shall impose the additional terms of imprisonment under either subdivision (a), (b), (c), or (d), but may not impose more than one of those terms for the same offense"--is unavailing. Munger argues this language limited a court to imposing only one enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (b) for a single offense--even when there is more than one victim. Munger is mistaken. Properly construed, the subdivision (h) language simply prohibited the court from imposing more than one section 12022.7, subdivisions (a) through (d) enhancement for injury to an individual victim. For example, if a defendant, in the commission or attempted commission of a felony personally inflicted an injury on a person who was at least 70 years old that rendered the person permanently paralyzed (§ 12022.7, subd. (c)), the court would be required to impose an enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (b) or section 12022.7, subdivision (c), but could not impose the enhancements under both subdivisions. Our interpretation is consistent with the rule that an act punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished by the longest potential term of imprisonment but shall not be punished
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|