 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Munger4/14/2004
under more than one provision. (See § 654, subd. (a).) We therefore construe section 12022.7, subdivision (h) as limiting the sentencing court to one of the subdivision (a), (b), (c), or (d) enhancements for each injured victim. It does not limit the court to imposing one section 12022.7 enhancement when there are multiple injury victims.
*3 Munger argues unpersuasively that his interpretation of section 12022.7, subdivision (h) is bolstered by the language of section 1170.1, subdivision (g) in effect at the time of his offense and a subsequent amendment to section 1170.1, subdivision (g). At the time of Munger's offense, section 1170.1, subdivision (g) read: "When two or more enhancements may be imposed for the infliction of great bodily injury in the commission of a single offense, only the greatest of those enhancements shall be imposed for that offense...." (Stats.2000, ch. 689, § 1, p. 3573.) Section 1170.1, subdivision (g) now reads: "When two or more enhancements may be imposed for the infliction of great bodily injury on the same victim in the commission of a single offense, only the greatest of those enhancements shall be imposed for that offense...." (Stats.2002, ch. 126, § 1, p. 555, new language underscored.) Munger contends that the 2002 amendment was a substantive change of law and implied that the previous version of the section 1170.1, subdivision (g) limited great bodily injury enhancements to one for a single offense regardless of the number of victims. Munger is mistaken. The 2002 amendment merely clarified the law. In an uncodified section of the legislation, the legislative intent is explained: "The amendment to subdivision (g) of Section 1170.1 of the Penal Code, in Section 1 of this act, is intended to clarify the application of that subdivision and conform the language of that subdivision to the decision of the Court of Appeal in People v. Arndt (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 387, 398-399." (Stats.2002, ch. 126, § 9, p. 559.) In People v. Arndt, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pages 398-399, the Court of Appeal had considered the language of section 1170.1, subdivision (g) and upheld the imposition of three separate section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancements based on the infliction of great bodily injury on three separate victims.
We also note that if the Legislature had wanted to limit the number of section 12022.7, subdivision (b) enhancements a court could impose in a particular case involving multiple victims, it would have expressly said so. For example, Vehicle Code section 23558 limits the number of one-year enhancements a court may impose under that section to three even if there are more than three injured victims. [FN3]
FN3. Vehicle Code Section 23558 provides in pertinent part: "Any person who proximately causes bodily injury or death to more than one victim in any one instance of driving in violation of Section 23153 of this code ... shall ... receive an enhancement of one year in the state prison for each additional injured victim.... The maximum number of one year enhancements which may be imposed pursuant to this section is three." (Italics added.)
Our construction of section 12022.7, subdivision (b) is consistent with the general principle that the law requires greater punishment when there are multiple victims. Multiple punishment is proper when a single act of violence, including drunk driving, injures or kills multiple victims. (People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 803.) In Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 20, our Supreme Court explained the principle:
"A defendant who commits an act of violence ... by a means likely to cause harm to several persons is more culpable that a defendant who harms only one person. For example, a defendant who chooses a means of murder th
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.
|
|