People v. McCart
| Citation | 649 P.2d 926,32 Cal.3d 338,185 Cal.Rptr. 284 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Decision Date | 02 September 1982 |
| Parties | , 649 P.2d 926 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sammy Edward McCART, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 22481. |
Quin Denvir, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, State Public Defender, and Adrian K. Panton, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Steven V. Adler and Steven H. Zeigen, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
This appeal requires the judiciary once again to interpret and properly apply the complex provisions of the Determinate Sentencing Act. 1 We consider the provisions contained in Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (b) for sentencing persons who commit crimes while imprisoned. We are presented with a single question: What is the proper computation of the term for multiple convictions of felonies committed in state prison?
At the outset we note the Legislature has determined that such crimes will in some ways be punished more severely than crimes committed "on the outside." At the same time the legislative plan calls for calculation of principal and subordinate terms in the same manner as for non-prison offenses. We harmonize these two statutory concepts. The result in appellant's case is that a single term, consisting of a principal and a subordinate term, should be calculated for both in-prison offenses. This term shall begin to run at the end of the prison term imposed for appellant's original "outside" offense.
We believe this result effectuates the language and purpose of section 1170.1, subdivision (b) as an integral part of the DSL. Pursuant to the act the Legislature has found that the punitive purpose of imprisonment is best served by assuring that prison terms are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and uniform among persons committing the same offense under similar circumstances. (§ 1170, subd. (a), par. 1.) Uniformity and proportionality are furthered by applying the general sentencing rules to in-prison offenses insofar as appropriate. More severe punishment of offenses committed inside prisons is provided by two express provisions of subdivision (b). 2
Appellant is incarcerated at the California Institution for Men in Chino. On February 5, 1981, he was convicted of an offense committed in prison and sentenced to a six-year term consecutive to his original term. Barely two months later, on March 27, he was convicted in this proceeding and sentenced to prison for violating section 4502 (). 3 Section 4502 requires the term "be served consecutively." The trial court imposed the full aggravated base term of four years to be served consecutively to both previously imposed terms.
Appellant contends this was error as subdivision (b) of section 1170.1 should be read to require that the length of consecutive terms for multiple in-prison offenses be calculated according to the formula contained in subdivision (a) of that section.
Section 1170.1, subdivision (b) reads as follows: (Emphasis added.) 4
It is clear, and respondent does not disagree, that appellant would have been sentenced to a single term totalling no more than seven years had he been convicted of both in-prison offenses in the same judicial proceeding. (See People v. Galliher (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 149, 174 Cal.Rptr. 467; In re Kindred (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 165, 172 Cal.Rptr. 468; In re Sims (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 309, 172 Cal.Rptr. 608, discussed, infra.) This term would have consisted of a six-year principal term for the more serious February 5 conviction and a one-year subordinate term (one-third the middle base term of three years) for violation of section 4502.
Respondent contends that a different result must be reached because the convictions resulted from separate judicial proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings were largely contemporaneous.
Respondent relies on the following language of subdivision (b): "the term of imprisonment for all such convictions ... shall commence from the time such person would otherwise have been released from prison." This language, respondent contends, reflects a clear legislative intent to provide full consecutive terms for in-prison offenses where the sentences are imposed in separate proceedings. 5
Respondent's interpretation ignores other substantial parts of subdivision (b) in contravention of the rule that, where possible, significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose. (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, 335 P.2d 672.) We shall review the section in its entirety.
The crucial language which respondent's argument overlooks appears in the first and last sentences of subdivision (b). The subdivision begins by directing that "the term of imprisonment for all such convictions [of felonies committed in prison or on escape and sentenced consecutively]" (emphasis added) begin at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison. It ends with the statement that: "The provisions of this subdivision shall be applicable in cases of convictions of more than one offense in different proceedings, and convictions of more than one offense in the same or different proceedings." (Emphasis added.)
Read together these provisions call for computation of a single term of imprisonment for all convictions of felonies committed in prison and sentenced consecutively, whether multiple convictions occur in the same court proceeding or in different proceedings. That this term is to commence when the person would otherwise have been released emphasizes that the new term is to be fully consecutive to the term already being served: i.e., that it must commence at the end of the longest of the prisoner's previously imposed terms. 6
Language substantially similar to the last sentence of subdivision (b) is used in subdivision (a) of section 1170.1: "... when any person is convicted of two or more felonies, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same or by a different court, and a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed ..., the aggregate term of imprisonment for all such convictions shall be...." (Emphasis added.)
In preparing the "Fixed Term Worksheet," the Judicial Council has directed trial judges to compute a single aggregate term for non-prison offenses, including counts underlying prior uncompleted sentences and those of the current case which are sentenced consecutively. Similarly, the California Judges Benchguide to determinate sentencing interprets subdivision (a) to direct that convictions in prior proceedings be included in the calculation of the aggregate term where the prior terms have not been completed and they are to be served consecutively to the current conviction or convictions. (Cal. Judges Benchguide: Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act and Practice, prepared by the Cal. Center for Judicial Ed. and Research (Special Issue No. 1, 1980), §§ 29, 48, 50; see also, Taugher & Cassou, Determinate Sentencing in California (1978) 9 Pacific Law Journal, 1, 54.) 7
When a word or phrase is repeated in a statute, it is normally presumed to have the same meaning throughout. (Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565; Corey v. Knight (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 671, 680, 310 P.2d 673.) Language in subdivision (b) indicates this principle is appropriately applied here. The subdivision specifies that where multiple new offenses are consecutive with each other, "the principal and subordinate terms shall be calculated as provided in subdivision (a), except that the total of subordinate terms may exceed five years." This sentence, we believe, expresses a legislative intent that the calculations under subdivisions (a) and (b) be the same, except insofar as subdivision (b) provides otherwise.
Subdivision (b) contains two exceptions to the calculation provided in subdivision (a). It specifically provides that the total of subordinate terms for consecutively sentenced in-prison offenses may exceed five years in length. The rule governing outside offenses is that the subordinate terms may not exceed five years unless the offenses are violent felonies as defined in section 667.5 of the code.
Subdivision (b) also provides for imposition of the full base term, aggravated and enhanced if appropriate, for the first or most serious in-prison felony. This "principal term" will be the second full term imposed on the offender. Persons sentenced consecutively on outside offenses will normally serve only one full term together with a number of shorter, subordinate terms. (See fn. 4, ante; cf. § 667.6 providing for full consecutive terms for specified sex offenses.)
In contrast to the two exceptions, the language of subdivisions (a) and (b) calling for a single aggregate term for all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...And we are required to ascribe significance to every word of each statute we are called upon to apply. (People v. McCart (1982) 32 Cal.3d 338, 342, 185 Cal.Rptr. 284, 649 P.2d 926.) As we noted earlier (see fn. 2, ante ), subdivision (d) was amended in 1985 to change the words "such crimes"......
-
People v. Thompson
... ... 9 (See Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385; People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 776, 60 `Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485; People v. McCart (1982) 32 Cal.3d 338, 344, 185 Cal. Rptr. 284, 649 P.2d 926 [a word or phrase repeated in a statute generally given the same meaning throughout].) Thus, in the abstract, a jury could convict without finding that negligent driving (lawful act/unlawful manner) was a cause of death. Returning to the ... ...
-
People v. Anderson
... ... U.S. (1994) 510 U.S. 135, 143, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 ; accord, People v. McCart (1982) 32 Cal.3d 338, 344, 185 Cal.Rptr. 284, 649 P.2d 926 ; Hoag v. Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564, 565.) Here, the Legislature adopted the original Penal Code of 1872 as a single statutory text, and references to crimes "punishable by death" appear in several places in that text. Until now, this ... ...
-
People v. Mitchell
... ... III. The Gun Enhancement Should Not Be Struck ... Unlike subdivision (a) of section 1170.1, subdivision (c) does not bar the imposition of enhancements that may attach to a full, consecutive term imposed. The California Supreme Court in People v. McCart (1982) 32 Cal.3d 338, 344, 185 Cal.Rptr. 284, 649 P.2d 926 observed with respect to subdivision (c) of section 1170.1 (then designated subdivision (b)) that the subdivision "also provides for imposition of the full base term, aggravated and enhanced (emphasis added) if appropriate, for the first or ... ...