People v. Monarrez
Decision Date | 08 September 1998 |
Docket Number | No. E020775,E020775 |
Citation | 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 247,66 Cal.App.4th 710 |
Parties | , 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7063, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9722 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Reyes Acuna MONARREZ, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Reyes Acuna Monarrez, Jr. of possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351), possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351), and receiving stolen property. (Pen.Code, § 496, subd. (a).) On this appeal, his sole contention is that the trial court improperly imposed separate sentences for the two drug offenses, the three year mid-term on one count and a one year consecutive term for the second count. 1 He contends that the two drug offenses involved essentially the same act, and that separate punishment was barred by Penal Code section 654. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.
We provide a somewhat detailed account of the development of the case, as it bears particularly on the arguments of respondent. The prosecution of defendant was part of the culmination of several years of apparently sporadic investigation and surveillance in connection with reports of drug activity at various locations. Between 1991 and 1993, defendant's relatives Maximino Acuna Monarrez and Florencio Acuna Monarrez were either seen in suspicious activity or owned vehicles connected to such activity. Defendant's first registered appearance was in 1995, when he was present during the serving of a narcotics search warrant. 2 Shortly thereafter, defendant and Raymundo Acuna Monarrez were observed entering a house which immediately became the subject of suspiciously heavy traffic. After several more false starts, 3 the Monarrez vehicles were tracked to a certain address in north San Bernardino, and a search warrant was obtained for the residence. When officers served the warrant, Raymundo Monarrez Sr. answered the door. Defendant was inside, along with Angel, Adrian, and Carmen Monarrez. A semi-automatic handgun and currency were found in the residence, as well as the packaged heroin and cocaine which were the basis for the charges in this case.
Meanwhile, Raymundo Acuna Monarrez was detained at another location, driving one of the vehicles which the officers had observed involved in suspicious activity since 1991. 4
defendant did in fact have multiple objectives is generally a question of fact for the trial court, and its decision will be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Braz (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1, 10, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 553.)
However, in In re Adams (1975) 14 Cal.3d 629, 635-636, 122 Cal.Rptr. 73, 536 P.2d 473, the court struck down multiple punishment for a defendant who had been caught transporting several types of contraband in his vehicle. Reasoning that defendant entertained only the single objective of delivering the narcotics to a cohort, the court found an "indivisible course of conduct ... which ... results in the commission of a single punishable offense." Defendant argues that Adams requires a finding that he harbored a single intent and objective in this case--to sell illegal drugs, no matter how many individual types of contraband he possessed for this purpose.
We disagree. Although Goodall, Green, and Menius are obviously distinguishable from this case in that all involved different types of offenses, while this case involves the same offense, People v. Barger (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 662, 672, 115 Cal.Rptr. 298 is directly on point. In Barger, defendant received separate punishments for possessing cocaine, Secobarbital, and marijuana, as well as for possessing heroin for sale. Rejecting defendant's contention that he had only the single objective of possessing drugs to trade for automatic weapons, 5 the court commented that California courts had "uniformly" held that section 654 "does not preclude multiple punishment for simultaneous possession of various narcotic drugs." (Ibid.) The Barger court relied, inter alia, on People v. Lockwood (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Martinez-Lopez
...under a single statute for a single act as it relates to multiple controlled substances. See, e.g. , People v. Monarrez , 66 Cal.App.4th 710, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 247, 248 (1998) (finding no violation of section 654 and affirming separate sentences for simultaneous possession of heroin and cocain......
-
People v. Arndt
...the substantial evidence test. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Monarrez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 710, 713, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 247; People v. Avalos, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583, 55 Cal. Rptr.2d 450.) Defendant's crimes involved not only......
-
People v. Arndt
...the substantial evidence test. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Monarrez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 710, 713, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 247; People v. Avalos, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1583, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 450.) Defendant's crimes involved not only ......
-
People v. Brown
...a single intent and objective. (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143; People v. Monarrez (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 46A, 66 Cal.App.4th 710, 713.) "If all the offenses are incidental to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of them, but not for more than one." (......