iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Criminal Law-Three Strikes			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Criminal Law-Sentencing-Three Strikes-Majority-Opinion
(People v. Casper)

Criminal Law-Sentencing-Three Strikes-Majority Opinion
(People v. Casper)

II.  Discussion

The three strikes law is a comprehensive, integrated sentencing scheme which applies to all cases coming within its terms.  (See § 667, subd. (f)(1) [“Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d)”]; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 [in determining whether to strike a prior serious or violent felony conviction pursuant to section 1385, courts “must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior [strike] convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [three strikes] scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted”; “bare antipathy to the consequences for any given defendant” should play no part in the determination]; see also People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 980.)

As we delineated at length in People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508 (Hendrix), by its terms, section 667, subdivision (c)(6) and (7) requires consecutive sentences whenever a defendant with one or more qualifying prior convictions is convicted, as here, of multiple serious or violent felonies “not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts.”[4]  (§ 667, subd. (c)(6); Hendrix, at pp. 512-513; People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 594 [“Making mandatory consecutive sentences for those current crimes committed on different occasions is consistent with the focus of the three strikes law, which is recidivism”].)  Consecutive sentencing is discretionary under section 667, subdivision (c) only if the current felony convictions are “committed on the same occasion” or “aris[e] from the same set of operative facts.”  (§ 667, subd. (c)(6) & (7); Hendrix, at pp. 512-513; see People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1007-1008 [When the statutory “language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction”].)

In addition, section 667, subdivision (c)(6) and (7) applies to “a current conviction” for more than one “felony.”  As the Attorney General notes, the “term ‘felony’ is not modified, explicitly or implicitly, by any requirement that these multiple felonies be ones to which strike allegations attach.”  Here, while the strike allegation was dismissed as to 34 of the 35 counts, defendant nevertheless remained subject to the consecutive sentencing requirements of section 667, subdivision (c) by virtue of the one count that retained the strike allegation.

Defendant asserts that a contrary conclusion is compelled by our decision in Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th 490.  In Garcia, this court held that the trial court was not bound by the length of sentence provisions of section 667, subdivision (e) for those current convictions as to which the strike allegations had been dismissed.  (Garcia, at pp. 495, 499-500.)  In that case the trial court had imposed consecutive sentences for the two burglary counts that arose on different occasions, and thus we did not directly address whether such consecutive sentencing was required under the three strikes law.  (Id. at pp. 495, 500.)  It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.  (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 243.)

Moreover, in Garcia, in response to an argument by the Attorney General, we stated, “The Attorney General . . . points to the requirement in the Three Strikes law that sentencing on distinct current offenses be consecutive (§§ 667, subd. (c)(6)-(8), 1170.12, subd. (a)(6)-(8)) and without any aggregate term limitation (§§ 667, subd. (c)(1), 1170.12, subd. (a)(1)).  The Attorney General argues that striking prior conviction allegations with respect to one count, but not with respect to another, undermines this principle of consecutive Three Strikes sentences.  Again, we disagree.  A requirement that a defendant serve the individual sentences for different current felonies consecutively does not indicate how the trial court should determine the lengths of those individual sentences.  Here, for example, the trial court conformed to the consecutive sentencing requirement by ordering that the 16-month sentence for the Gantt burglary be served consecutively to the 30-year-to-life sentence for the Kobel burglary.  Therefore, we see nothing in the trial court’s action that is inconsistent with the consecutive sentencing requirement in the Three Strikes law.  Rather, the court expressly applied that requirement.”  (Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 500.)  Thus, Garcia did not anticipate that its holding regarding section 667, subdivision (e) would have any effect on the consecutive sentencing requirements of section 667, subdivision (c).

In sum, there can be no doubt after examining the language of section 667, subdivision (c) but that consecutive sentences are required for all current felony convictions, regardless of whether a strike allegation attaches to them, if the crimes did not arise on the same occasion or under the same set of operative facts.  Reaching a different conclusion here as to this requirement would distort the statutory language, eviscerate the three strikes law, and return to trial judges a discretion in sentencing both the Legislature and the electorate sought to severely curtail.[5]

People v. Casper 6/3/04 SC S114285 three strikes law

Date Posted	Docket #/ File Format	Description
Jun 03 2004	S114285 [PDF] [DOC]	P. v. Casper 6/3/04 SC

California Code of Civil Procedure 1003-Motionn   
Criminal Law-Sentencing-Three Strikes California ---Dissent-(People v. Casper)
 

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com
Yaazoo!