People v. Harvey
Decision Date | 27 November 1979 |
Docket Number | Cr. 21022 |
Citation | 25 Cal.3d 754,602 P.2d 396,159 Cal.Rptr. 696 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 602 P.2d 396 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Alan HARVEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Appellate Defenders, Inc., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, J. Perry Langford and Handy Horiye, San Diego, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger and George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Karl J. Phaler and Michael D. Wellington, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant Michael Alan Harvey appeals from a judgment entered following his plea of guilty to two counts of robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) with use of a firearm. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise cited.) The plea was part of a bargain under which a third count, charging an unrelated robbery, was dismissed. He was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of seven years and eight months. Calculation of that term included four elements: (1) a four-year "upper" term for the robbery charged in count one (see former § 213); (2) a two-year enhancement of count one for using a firearm during that robbery ( § 12022.5);(3) a one-year consecutive term for the robbery charged in count two (which term consists of one-third of the three-year "middle" term for robbery (see § 1170.1, subd. (a)); and (4) an eight-month enhancement of count two for firearm use (which term consists of one-third of the two-year enhancement for firearm use (see Ibid.)).
Defendant is critical of the duration of his sentence, contending that the sentencing court improperly considered and relied upon the facts underlying the third, Dismissed robbery count in selecting the four-year upper term as an appropriate punishment for count one (element one). A similar error, so he argues, resulted in the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the term under count two (element three). Finally, defendant asserts that the eight-month enhancement of the punishment for count two by reason of firearm use (element four) violated the provisions of section 1170.1. We will conclude that two of defendant's three contentions have merit and that while the judgments of conviction are affirmed the cause must be remanded for resentencing.
a) Choice of the upper term for count one. The record indicates that, in sentencing, the trial court selected the upper, four-year term for the robbery under count one because of certain "aggravation aspects" surrounding defendant's offenses, including the robbery charged in the dismissed count three. The sentencing court expressly relied upon a probation report which contained an extensive discussion of the circumstances of the foregoing robbery. In passing sentence, the court stated that (Italics added.) As defendant correctly notes, the threatening statement quoted by the sentencing court was made to the victim of the third, dismissed robbery. Also, the bulk of the $600 referred to was taken in the third robbery.
Rule 421, California Rules of Court, describes the "Circumstances in Aggravation" which a sentencing judge may consider in imposing punishment. Rule 421(a) includes "Facts relating to the crime." The People, quite fairly, concede that evidence regarding a dismissed offense, such as the robbery charged in count three, could not properly be considered as such "facts relating to the crime" because the rule plainly applies only to those aggravating circumstances which underlie the offense or offenses for which sentence is imposed, and not to any uncharged or dismissed offenses. The People do assert, however, that evidence regarding such offenses could be relevant and admissible to show pertinent "facts relating to the defendant" under rule 421(b), which include defendant's "pattern of violent conduct" (rule 421(b)(1); cf. People v. Cheatham (1979) 23 Cal.3d 829, 834-835, 153 Cal.Rptr. 585, 591 P.2d 1237).
In our view, under the circumstances of this case, it would be improper and unfair to permit the sentencing court to consider any of the facts underlying the dismissed count three for purposes of aggravating or enhancing defendant's sentence. Count three was dismissed in consideration of defendant's agreement to plead guilty to counts one and two. Implicit in such a plea bargain, we think, is the understanding (in the absence of any contrary agreement) that defendant will suffer no adverse sentencing consequences by reason of the facts underlying, and solely pertaining to, the dismissed count. The People have cited no contrary authorities. Although People v. Guevara (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 86, 92-94, 151 Cal.Rptr. 511, upheld the authority of the sentencing court to take into account certain facts underlying charges dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain, those facts were also Transactionally related to the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. As the Guevara court carefully explained, "The plea bargain does not, expressly or by implication, preclude the sentencing court from reviewing all the circumstances relating to Guevara's Admitted offenses to the legislatively mandated end that a term, lower, middle or upper, be imposed on Guevara commensurate with the gravity of his crime." (P. 94, 151 Cal.Rptr. P. 517, italics in original.) In contrast, as we have noted, the present case involved a robbery alleged in dismissed count three which was unrelated to, and wholly separate from, the admitted robberies charged in counts one and two.
We conclude that the cause should be remanded for resentencing on count one.
b) Choice of consecutive sentence for count two. The record fails to indicate, however, that in choosing to impose a consecutive sentence the court improperly relied upon any evidence underlying dismissed count three. Under rule 425(a) of the Rules of Court, the sentencing court in determining whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences may consider The record demonstrates that in selecting consecutive sentences the court correctly applied the sentencing factors described in subdivision (a), focusing only upon those two robberies of which defendant has been convicted. We conclude that the court's references to "the crimes" committed by defendant were limited to the two robberies underlying counts one and two, and that imposition of the consecutive sentence in question was entirely proper.
As noted, defendant's use of a firearm in connection with the two robberies under counts one and two accounted for a two-year enhancement of count one, and an eight-month enhancement of count two. Defendant acknowledges that the enhancement of count one was appropriate under section 1170.1, but he challenges the propriety of the enhancement of count two under that section.
Section 1170.1 relates to calculation of the term of imprisonment for offenses ordered to run consecutively. Subdivision (a) of this section provides in pertinent part (Italics added.)
Defendant contends that firearm use is not an "offense" which is "listed" in section 667.5, subdivision (c), and that accordingly the eight months' enhancement for firearm use was improper. Section 667.5 pertains to the subject of enhancement of sentence by reason of prior prison terms imposed on a defendant. Subdivision (a) of the section provides for specified enhanced terms where the offense was one of the "violent felonies" specified in subdivision (c) thereof. That subdivision provides, in pertinent part, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Heishman
...that crime was dismissed as the result of a plea bargain after he pleaded guilty to the rape of Patrice S. In People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 159 Cal.Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396, there was a plea bargain under which the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, and a third count......
-
People v. Stompro
...667.5, subdivision (c). We believe this argument has been resolved in appellant's favor in the case of People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 759-761, 159 Cal.Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396. Moreover, recently amended Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), has properly been held to not apply ......
-
People v. Melton
...those agreed to at the time the bargains were entered. The case on which he relies for this proposition, People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 159 Cal.Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396, is not helpful to his cause. Harvey simply holds that, in imposing sentence under a plea bargain, the court may no......
-
People v. Poon
...was proper, and fully justified by the atrocious circumstances attending appellant's actions. (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 759, 159 Cal.Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396; People v. Vizcarra (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 858, 865, 168 Cal.Rptr. The judgments are affirmed. RACANELLI, P. J., and ......
-
Punishment
...conditions may be imposed on counts that are dismissed. People v. Martin (2010) 51 Cal.4th 75 (holding that People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 is not limited to the imposition of prison terms, and noting that courts may impose probation conditions designed to prevent future criminality).......
-
Table of cases
...v. Harvest (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 641, §§14:31, 14:48 People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516, §§7:85, 7:86.3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, §§10:27, 14:13 People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, §11:162.2 People v. Hawley (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 247, §4:24.8 People v. Hayes (1992) 3......
-
Chapter 17 Post-Verdict and Sentencing
...waiver, where a defendant agrees the court may consider dismissed counts for: Terms of Probation and Restitution. People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Watson Advisement (See Chapter 8) On a driving-under-the-influence case, whether a conviction occurs by plea bargain or verdict by a jury,......
-
Chapter 8 Guilty Plea
...waiver, where a defendant agrees the court may consider dismissed counts for terms of probation and restitution. People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754. Cruz Waiver Sometimes, a defendant enters a plea based on either a plea bargain with the prosecution or an open plea with the court, but s......
-
Chapter 249, SB 2 – Firearms
...290, 667.5, 1192.7, 1192.8, or 29805 that was dismissed pursuant to a plea or dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. (7) In the five years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application for a new license or a license renewal, has bee......
-
Chapter 455, AB 1698 – Falsified public records
...is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of this section is dismissed and waiver is obtained pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, upon written motion of the prosecuting agency, the court, after a hearing described in subdivision (f), shall issue a written order that th......