People v. Gonzalez
Decision Date | 02 June 2008 |
Docket Number | No. S149898.,S149898. |
Citation | 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 569,184 P.3d 702,43 Cal.4th 1118 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Silvestre Garcia GONZALEZ et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney (San Diego) and Charles E. Nickel, Deputy District Attorney, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
As relevant here, a jury found defendant Luis Lopez Arriaga guilty of the attempted premeditated murder of William Hunt.1 The jury also found that, in the commission of that offense, defendant used a firearm in a manner described in Penal Code section 12022.5, as well as in a manner described in each of the three firearm enhancements set forth in Penal Code section 12022.53.2
We granted the People's petition for review in order to resolve a conflict regarding the question of whether, after a trial court imposes punishment for the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement with the longest term of imprisonment, the remaining section 12022.53 firearm enhancements and any section 12022.5 firearm enhancements that were found true for the same crime must be stayed or stricken. For the reasons set forth below, we construe section 12022.53 to require that, after a trial court imposes punishment for the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement with the longest term of imprisonment, the remaining section 12022.53 firearm enhancements and any section 12022.5 firearm enhancements that were found true for the same crime must be imposed and then stayed. For a different reason, however, we do not have cause to reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment insofar as it directed otherwise.3
Gonzalez hired defendant to guard his marijuana gardens. For that purpose, Gonzalez gave defendant a shotgun and told him to shoot anyone who came near the gardens. In October 2000, defendant twice fired a shotgun at William Hunt, who was hunting with his children near Gonzalez's marijuana plants. Hunt was hit in the wrist and in his midsection.
In conjunction with its guilty verdict as to the count that charged the attempted premeditated murder of Hunt (§§ 187, 664), the jury found true the firearm enhancements of subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) of section 12022.53 and the firearm enhancement in section 12022.5, former subdivision (a)(1) (Stats.1999, Ch. 129, § 5) .4 Defendant received an indeterminate life sentence with the possibility of parole for the substantive crime. The trial court imposed an unstayed additional and consecutive term of 25 years to life for the 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement. It then sentenced defendant on the remaining firearm enhancements, but stayed execution of those sentences pending "successful completion" of the sentence previously imposed "[b]y virtue and operation of law under Penal Code section 654."5 On appeal, defendant claimed all of the remaining prohibited firearm enhancements must be stricken. A majority of the Court of Appeal agreed with defendant and held that the remaining firearm enhancement findings "must be stricken," rather than imposed and then stayed. Their opinion directed the trial court to strike those findings and vacate the related sentences.6 The majority disagreed, in part, with People v. Bracamonte (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 704, 131 Cal. Rptr.2d 334 (Bracamonte), which had, on similar facts, concluded that the prohibited section 12022.53 firearm enhancements must be imposed and then stayed, but that the prohibited section 12022.5 firearm enhancement must be stricken. (Bracamonte at pp. 711-712, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 334.) In this court, defendant contends the remaining firearm enhancements must be stricken or reversed, while the People contend they should be imposed and then stayed.
"By definition, a sentence enhancement is `an additional term of imprisonment added to the base term.'" (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 898, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 69 P.3d 951, quoting Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 4.405(c), now rule 4.405(3).) The statutes at issue here, sections 12022.5 and 12022.53, provide various sentence enhancements for the use of a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of a crime.
Section 12022.5(a) provides for a sentence enhancement of three, four, or 10 years for personal use of a firearm in the attempted commission of any felony.
Section 12022.53 sets forth the following escalating additional and consecutive penalties, beyond that imposed for the substantive crime, for use of a firearm in the commission of specified felonies, including attempted premeditated murder: a 10-year prison term for personal use of a firearm, even if the weapon is not operable or loaded (id., subd. (b)); a 20-year term if the defendant "personally and intentionally discharges a firearm" (id., subd. (c)); and a 25-years-to-life term if the intentional discharge of the firearm causes "great bodily injury" or "death, to any person other than an accomplice" (id., subd. (d)). For these enhancements to apply, the requisite facts must be alleged in the information or indictment, and defendant must admit those facts or the trier of fact must find them to be true. (§ 12022.53(j); People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 509-510 & fn. 4, 105 Cal.Rptr. 345, 503 P.2d 1353.)
Section 12022.53(f) provides, in part, that (Italics added.)
Section 12022.53(h) provides, "Notwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, the court shall not strike an allegation under this section or a finding bringing a person within the provisions of this section."
Section 12022.5(c) was amended in 2002 to include language identical to the language in section 12022.53(h). The legislation enacting that amendment stated that the amendment was declarative of existing law. (See Stats. 2002, ch. 126, § 13.)
Although most prohibitions are statutory, including those at issue here, the procedure for dealing with prohibited terms or enhancements often has no express statutory basis. In those situations, the procedures have been formulated by the courts and the California Judicial Council. (See, e.g., People v. Lai (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1244-1245, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 444; People v. Niles (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 749, 756, 39 Cal.Rptr. 11.)
In order to understand our statutory construction of sections 12022.53 and 12022.5, as well as the interplay between the statutes in question and the procedures the Judicial Council adopted in order to address prohibited enhancements, it is important to understand that the word "impose" applies to enhancements that are "imposed and then executed" as well as ones that are (Bracamonte, supra, 106 Cal. App.4th at p. 711, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, italics added.)
(Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 260, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 165 P.3d 118.) If the words in the statute do not, by themselves, provide a reliable indicator of legislative intent, (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 871, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 891 P.2d 804.) (People v. Shabazz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 55, 67-68, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 750, 130 P.3d 519.) If the statute is ambiguous, we may consider a variety of extrinsic aids, including legislative history, the statute's purpose, and public policy. (Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 733, 738, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 676, 101 P.3d 563.)
In reaching its conclusion that the prohibited firearm enhancements must be stricken rather than imposed and stayed, the Court of Appeal reasoned that "[s]ection 12022.53, subdivision (f), expressly states that only...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Delavega
...admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact." ( § 12022.53, subd. (j) ; People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1124–1125, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 184 P.3d 702.) In addition, an enhancement must "be pleaded in connection with every count as to which it is......
-
People v. Pettie
...imposition of the 3-year enhancement was unauthorized. Accordingly, the 3-year enhancement must be stayed. ( People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1123, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 184 P.3d 702.)N. Cumulative PrejudiceDefendants contend the cumulative prejudice from multiple errors requires re......
-
Ybarra v. Hedgpeth
...California Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of its decision in People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal. 4th 1118 (2008). On September 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal vacated Petitioner's sentence, remanded to the trial court for sentencing, but affirmed......
-
People v. Kopp
...court therefore did not err. The trial court properly imposed and stayed the section 12022.7 enhancement. (Cf. People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1127, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 184 P.3d 702 ; People v. Le (2015) 61 Cal.4th 416, 429, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 166, 351 P.3d 295.)B. Kopp's Contention......