People v. Horsley CA3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Romero motion given defendant’s pattern of positive programming since the 2008 sentence. The People raise an issue regarding an improper calculation of defendant’s sentence under section 1170.1. Under section 1170.1, “if a defendant is convicted of more than one offense carrying a determinate term, and the trial court imposes consecutive sentences, the term with the longest sentence is the ‘principal term’; any term

The record is ambiguous about whether the trial court intended to impose and stay the sentence for shooting at an occupied vehicle under section 654 or impose it concurrently, as it used both words to describe its sentence for this count. The record also does not include the most recent abstract of judgment from this resentencing.

3 consecutive to the principal term is a ‘subordinate term.’ ” (People v. Felix (2000) 22 Cal.4th 651, 655; see also People v. Nguyen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 197, 203-204 [finding the § 1170.1 sentencing scheme applies in “Three Strikes” cases].) We agree with the People that section 1170.1 controls because the trial court imposed consecutive…