People v. Mendevil

Decision Date19 May 1978
Docket NumberCr. 31648 and C
Citation146 Cal.Rptr. 65,81 Cal.App.3d 84
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Richard Anthony MENDEVIL, Defendant and Respondent. The PEOPLE of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; Richard Anthony MENDEVIL, Real Party in Interest. iv. 52032.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

John K. Van De Kamp, Dist. Atty., Donald J. Kaplan, and Roderick W. Leonard, Deputy Dist. Attys., for appellant and petitioner.

Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Dennis A. Fischer, William Klump, and Leighton A. Nugent, Deputy Public Defenders, for respondent and real party in interest Mendevil.

No appearance by respondent Superior Court.

BEACH, Associate Justice.

Respondent herein was convicted after a jury trial of violating Penal Code sections 12303 (possessing a bomb) and 12303.3 (recklessly possessing a destructive device in a public building). Although Count 2 provides for greater punishment (both under the determinate sentencing law and the indeterminate sentencing law), the trial court stayed execution of the sentence as to Count 2 until defendant finished his term on Count 1 or until the time for appeal has passed, the stay to become permanent after the completion of sentences to Count 1. The People appeal from the "order reducing the degree of punishment imposed," citing Penal Code sections 1238(a)(5) and (a)(6). The People have also filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking the same result, that is, that the trial court resentence respondent and stay the sentence on the less serious offense. We consolidated the appeal and the petition for writ of mandate.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL:

The People contend:

1. The order is appealable, and

2. The court should have stayed execution of the sentence on the less serious offense rather than the sentence on the more serious offense.

DISCUSSION:

1. The order is appealable.

The People have filed both an appeal and a petition for writ of mandate. Respondent does not argue that issue of appealability, but prays only in his brief that the petition for writ of mandate be denied. In light of the decision in People v. Drake, 19 Cal.3d 749, 139 Cal.Rptr. 720, 566 P.2d 622, we deem it appropriate to discuss the issue of appealability.

Penal Code section 1238(a) provides in parts applicable here:

"(a) An appeal may be taken by the people from any of the following:

". . . .ppe

"(5) An order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the people.

"(6) An order modifying the verdict or finding by reducing the degree of the offense or the punishment imposed.

People v. Drake, supra, 19 Cal.3d 749, 754, 139 Cal.Rptr. 720, 722, 566 P.2d 622, 624, reemphasizes " 'that except under certain limited circumstances the People shall have no right of appeal in criminal cases.' (Citation.)"; that the Legislature has struck a delicate balance in "choos(ing) with some precision the situations" in which the People may appeal; therefore, the courts should not stretch the statutory language of Penal Code section 1238 to include situations beyond the statute's manifest meaning. (People v. Drake, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 758, 139 Cal.Rptr. 720, 566 P.2d 622.) 1 The court there specifically concluded that "there is no statutory authorization (under any of the enumerated subsections of Penal Code section 1238(a)) for an appeal by the People from an order under (Penal Code) section 1181, subdivision 6, which modifies a verdict or finding to that of a lesser included offense . . . ." (People v. Drake, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 754, 139 Cal.Rptr. at p. 721, 566 P.2d at p. 623.)

The matter at bench differs from Drake in that here the trial court's order is "an order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the people." (Pen.Code, § 1238(a)(5); People v. Holly, 62 Cal.App.3d 797, 133 Cal.Rptr. 331.) People v. Drake, supra, 19 Cal.3d 749, 139 Cal.Rptr. 720, 566 P.2d 622, did not consider or discuss orders made and appealed pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(5). It appears the order at bench is also appealable as "an order modifying the . . . finding by reducing the . . . punishment imposed." 2 (Pen.Code, § 1238(a)(6); People v. Villegas, 14 Cal.App.3d 700, 92 Cal.Rptr. 663; People v. Thatcher, 255 Cal.App.2d 830, 831-832, 63 Cal.Rptr. 492; People v. Orrante, 201 Cal.App.2d 553, 556-558, 20 Cal.Rptr. 480.) People v. Holly, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d 797, 133 Cal.Rptr. 331, holds that an order suspending sentence on one of several counts, made pursuant to Penal Code section 654, is appealable. Subsection (5) of Penal Code section 1238(a) uses the words "after judgment." It is arguable that an order made pursuant to Penal Code section 654 is part of the judgment and does not "follow" it. However, we follow and apply the reasoning and explanation of People v. Holly, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d 797, 133 Cal.Rptr. 331, wherein another division of this court explains that for the purposes of the application of 654 it is necessary that there first be a judgment imposing sentences in order to have the execution of one of such sentences thereafter suspended. We believe that this is a fairer and more reasonable analysis. (In accord, People v. Villegas, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d at p. 703 fn. 2, 92 Cal.Rptr. 663.) In considering appealability under section 1238(a)(6), People v. Villegas, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d 700, 92 Cal.Rptr. 663, notes that it should not and does not make any difference in the matter of appealability if the sentence is pronounced and thereafter execution suspended or whether imposition of the sentence is suspended and then probation imposed, because in either case the granting of probation reduces the punishment imposed and hence makes the order appealable under Penal Code section 1238(a)(6). (People v. Villegas, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d at p. 703, 92 Cal.Rptr. 663.) In the matter at bench the punishment imposed 3 has been reduced from the most severe to the less severe.

2. The trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in sentencing respondent.

Both parties agree that respondent could not be punished under both Counts 1 and 2 since both offenses involved the same act. Penal Code section 654 provides:

"An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this Code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it be punished under more than one; an acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other."

While most trial courts and appellate courts, which at times have straightened out section 654 sentencing problems, have tended to stay execution on the less seriously punishable offense, section 654 does not require that. Rather, section 654 allows the trial court to exercise discretion and to punish "either" of the provisions under which the act or omission is punishable. (People v. DeVaney, 33 Cal.App.3d 630, 639, 109 Cal.Rptr. 276; People v. Wesley, 10 Cal.App.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • People v. Norrell
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1996
    ...Cal.App.3d 902, 911-912, 89 Cal.Rptr. 377; People v. Devaney (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 630, 639, 109 Cal.Rptr. 276; People v. Mendevil (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 84, 89, 146 Cal.Rptr. 65; People v. Bradley (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 744, 753, 171 Cal.Rptr. 487; People v. Avila (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 873, 87......
  • People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 16, 1986
    ...is appealable by the People. (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 2, 153 Cal.Rptr. 40, 591 P.2d 63; People v. Mendevil (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 84, 87-88, 146 Cal.Rptr. 65; see § 1238, subd. (a)(5).) However, the People have no right to appeal from the court's acceptance of defendant......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1982
    ...sentence imposing greater punishment and elect to impose sentence on a conviction carrying a lesser punishment. (People v. Mendevil [1978] 81 Cal.App.3d 84, 88, 146 Cal.Rptr. 65; People v. De Vaney [1973] 33 Cal.App.3d 630, 639, 109 Cal.Rptr. 276; People v. Wesley [1970] 10 Cal.App.3d 902, ......
  • People v. Belton, Cr. A
    • United States
    • California Superior Court
    • August 8, 1978
    ...1466, subdivision 1(e). (People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 682, fn. 1, 143 Cal.Rptr. 885, 574 P.2d 1237; People v. Mendevil (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 84, 88, 146 Cal.Rptr. 65; People v. Holly (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 797, 801-802, 133 Cal.Rptr. 331; People v. Villegas (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 700, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT