People v. Noel CA3

BACKGROUND

On remand for a full resentencing, the parties agreed that defendant’s upper term sentence on count one could not stand. Defendant’s trial attorney also argued against consecutive sentences, reasoning it would effectively result in life without the possibility of parole. Defense counsel urged the trial court to impose a sentence that would protect the public but also afford defendant a possibility of parole in his lifetime. The People disagreed, asserting factors in aggravation and arguing that defendant would have an opportunity for parole after he turned 50 years old and served 20 years of his sentence, referencing the Elderly Parole Program. (Pen. Code, § 3055.) Paperwork from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicated parole eligibility in August 2038. Defense counsel acknowledged parole eligibility but nevertheless urged concurrent sentences because consecutive sentences were not necessary to protect the public.

2 The trial court said defense counsel got the court’s attention with the argument that a lengthy sentence could deprive defendant of an effective opportunity for parole. But the trial court said the People had countered the concern,…