People v. Hendrix, S055275

Citation16 Cal.4th 508,66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431,941 P.2d 64
Decision Date18 August 1997
Docket NumberNo. S055275,S055275
Parties, 941 P.2d 64, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6560, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6629, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,663 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Duell HENDRIX, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)

Mark L. Christiansen, Granite Bay, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Willard F. Jones, Gold River, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony L. Dicce, Roger E. Venturi and Maureen A. Daly, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BROWN, Justice.

A man points a gun at four people seated at a shopping mall table and demands their money. Two comply, and the robber departs. He is subsequently convicted of two counts of robbery, and two counts of attempted robbery, and admits three prior serious felonies. Under the three strikes law, must the robber be sentenced consecutively for the four current serious and violent felony convictions? The Court of Appeal held that consecutive sentences were not mandatory, but discretionary, and that the trial court had understood the scope of its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. We agree that a trial court retains discretion to impose consecutive sentences under these circumstances.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 7, 1994, at approximately 10:50 p.m., Mervin and Virginia Vick, and Kent and Ollie Ridge, were seated at a table following a fund-raiser at the Maywood Shopping Center in Madera County. A White male, later identified as defendant James Duell Hendrix A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of robbery, and two counts of attempted robbery (Pen.Code, § 211; 1 former § 664); the allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in committing each of these crimes were found true. (Former § 12022.5, subd. (a).) Defendant subsequently admitted three prior serious felony convictions. (Subd. (d).) 2 The trial court sentenced him to state prison for 4 consecutive terms of 25 years to life (subd. (e)(2)(A)(ii)), consecutive to a determinate term of 20 years for the firearm use enhancements (former § 12022.5, subd. (a)), and a determinate term of 15 years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancements (subd. (a)).

                [941 P.2d 66] approached, cocked a semiautomatic weapon and said, "This is a holdup.  Don't no one move and no one will get hurt."   The two men gave defendant their money;  the two women [16 Cal.4th 511] said they had none.  Defendant backed out of the room, returned briefly to warn his victims not to move, and then left again
                

The Court of Appeal remanded the case in light of People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628, but otherwise affirmed. As relevant here, the court held that imposition of consecutive sentences is not mandatory, but merely discretionary, when a defendant has suffered two or more prior felony convictions within the meaning of subdivision (d) and is convicted of multiple felony convictions based on a single act of violence against multiple victims. The court further concluded that the trial court had understood the scope of its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.

We granted the Attorney General's petition for review. 3

II. DISCUSSION

The issue before us is whether consecutive sentences are mandatory under subdivision (c)(6), (c)(7), or subdivision (e)(2)(B), 4 when We start with the relevant language of section 667, and in particular subdivisions (c)(6), (c)(7), and (e)(2)(B). Subdivision (c) provides: "Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following," including subdivision (c)(6) and (c)(7).

[941 P.2d 67] the defendant has two or more prior felony convictions within the meaning of subdivision (d), and commits serious or violent felonies against multiple victims at the same time.

Subdivision (c)(6) provides: "If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision (e)." By its terms, this subdivision applies to any current felony conviction. Moreover, subdivision (c)(6) clearly provides that consecutive sentencing is mandatory for any current felony convictions "not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts." "It is difficult to understand how the Legislature could have intended anything else by these words. 'When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and courts should not indulge in it.' [Citation.]" (People v. Martin (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 656, 662, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 776.) By implication, consecutive sentences are not mandatory under subdivision (c)(6) if the multiple current felony convictions are "committed on the same occasion" or "aris[e] from the same set of operative facts." (See People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1140-1141, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 351.)

Subdivision (c)(7) provides: "If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law." Subdivision (c)(7) applies when there is more than one current serious or violent felony. Here defendant robbed two people and attempted to rob two others. Because defendant was found to have personally used a firearm in committing these offenses, the robberies and attempted robberies qualify as both serious and violent offenses within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8), and 667.5, subdivision (c)(8). While it is not clear that the serious and violent felonies referred to in subdivision (c)(7) are confined to those enumerated in sections 1192.7, subdivision (c), and 667.5, subdivision (c) (compare subd. (d)(1) & (2)), defendant here falls well within the purview of subdivision (c)(7).

The most logical meaning of the reference to "paragraph (6)" in subdivision (c)(7) is that it refers to subdivision (c)(6). So construed, "more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6)" refers to multiple current convictions for serious or violent felonies "not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts." (Subd. (c)(6).) Thus, when a defendant is convicted of two or more current serious or violent felonies "not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts," not only must the court impose the sentences for these serious or violent offenses consecutive to each other, it must also impose these sentences "consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law." By implication, consecutive sentences are not mandated under subdivision (c)(7) if all of the serious or violent current felony convictions are "committed on the same occasion" or "aris[e] from the same set of operative facts."

Under this approach, subdivision (c)(6) and (c)(7) are not duplicative. Subdivision (c)(6) mandates consecutive sentencing for any current felony convictions not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts. Consecutive Here, as the parties concede, all of the current serious and violent felony convictions were "committed on the same occasion." Therefore, subdivision (c)(7) does not mandate that the trial court impose consecutive sentences. Assuming consecutive sentences were not required under a statute other than the three strikes law, a point not addressed by the Attorney General, the trial court therefore retained discretion to sentence defendant either concurrently or consecutively.

[941 P.2d 68] sentencing is not mandated under subdivision (c)(6) if the current felony convictions are committed on the same occasion or arise from the same set of operative facts. However, under subdivision (c)(7), if any two current felony convictions are serious or violent, and were not committed on the same occasion, and do not arise from the same set of operative facts, the trial court must impose the sentences for [16 Cal.4th 514] these offenses consecutive to each other and "consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law."

The Attorney General asserts that subdivision (c)(6) and (c)(7) apply only when a defendant has one prior felony conviction or "strike," and that subdivision (e)(2)(B) controls those cases in which the defendant has two or more prior felony convictions or "strikes." We disagree.

Subdivision (e) provides: "For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior felony conviction ...," including subdivision (e)(2)(A) and (e)(2)(B). Under subdivision (e)(2)(A), a trial court must sentence a defendant with two or more qualifying prior felony convictions or "strikes" to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment. Subdivision (e)(2)(B) provides: "The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
214 cases
  • People v. Acosta
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1999
    ...but there were various calibers. So that is a separate incident subject to separate punishment." In People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64, the court held that consecutive sentences are not mandatory under the "three strikes" law where the defendant is conv......
  • People v. Henderson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 2020
    ...that on serious or violent felonies, two or more, that they be sentenced consecutively."Citing People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64 ( Hendrix ), where the Supreme Court held "consecutive sentences are not mandated under [section 667,] subdivision (c)(7) i......
  • People v. Jaffe, H026265.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 2004
    ...43, 90 P.3d 1203; People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 233, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228; People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 513, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) The sentencing court has discretion to impose a concurrent term under the Three Strikes statutes only if the court......
  • People v. Sullivan, A109149.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 2007
    ...the jury verdict was rendered, the sentencing court was compelled to sentence defendant consecutively. (People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 513, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) Imposition of mandatory consecutive sentences which were authorized by facts reflected in the jury verdict ......
  • 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