 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Munger4/14/2004
urt must state its reasons for its sentence choice at the time of sentencing. (§ 1170, subd. (c).)
FN5. All subsequent rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
*5 An enhancement, however, does not define a substantive crime; rather it imposes an additional penalty when a crime is committed under specified circumstances. (People v. Superior Court (Grilli) (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 506, 512-513, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Superior Court (Mendella) (1983) 33 Cal.3d 754, 758.) Thus, an enhancement is "an additional term of imprisonment added to the base term" or sentence imposed for a particular crime. (Rule 4.405(c).) Mandatory enhancements do not involve a sentence choice, and, therefore, a court is not required to give a statement of reasons when it imposes them. (People v. Dixie (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 852, 857.) Unless a statute says otherwise, an enhancement may be imposed or stricken, but that is the extent of the trial's court discretion. (People v. Harvey (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1231.)
"[M]ultiple enhancements ... are inherently consecutive rather than concurrent." (People v. Reiley (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1487, 1489.) Munger has not presented any authority that when multiple great bodily injury enhancements are imposed because of multiple victims, the court must choose whether the enhancements run concurrent or consecutive to each other.
Again Munger relies on the statutory language of section 12022.7, subdivisions (b) and (h) to support his argument. We have already explained why we reject his reading of these provisions. The salient fact of this case is that there are two victims who were paralyzed in the commission of the underlying offense. There is nothing in the statutory language of section 12022.7 or any other statute that indicates when multiple enhancements are imposed because there are multiple victims the court has a sentence choice as to whether they are run concurrent or consecutive to each other. Munger's reliance on section 1170.1, subdivision (g) as it read at the time of the offense and in its current version is misplaced because this is a case where there are multiple enhancements because there are multiple victims. As we indicated above, the 2002 amendment to section 1170.1, subdivision (g) was a clarification of existing law to conform the language of the subdivision to People v. Arndt, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 387. (Stats.2002, ch. 126, § 9, p. 559.)
The court had discretion to strike one or both of the section 12022.7, subdivision (b) enhancements under section 1385 and explicitly chose not to exercise such discretion. Whether to run the enhancements concurrent or consecutive was not a matter with the court's discretion. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion and no error in imposing the enhancements consecutive to each other.
Finally, Munger contends section 654 precludes the imposition of identical multiple enhancements in this case. The contention is without merit.
Section 654 prohibits the imposition of multiple punishment for a single criminal act. [FN6] "The 'cases which do apply ... section 654 to enhancements have limited the number of enhancements applied to a single conviction, when there was a single act committed against a single victim.' [Citations.]" (People v. Arndt, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 396.)
FN6. Section 654 provides in pertinent part: (a) "An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision."
*6 Whether or not section 654 applies to enhancements, multiple enhancements were proper here. Multiple punishments are appropriat
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.
|
|