The People v. Howard CA3

DISCUSSION

I Sentencing Defendant contends his sentence on count five should have been stayed pursuant to section 654 because it was the same “physical act” as count three. In the alternative, defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence on count five. A. Section 654 The trial court sentenced defendant on count three (carjacking Tuan) to prison for 19 years, consisting of twice the upper term of nine years plus one year for the arming enhancement. The court sentenced defendant on count five (second degree robbery of Tuan) to a consecutive term of two years four months. The court gave its reason for the sentence as follows: “So I am going to be imposing the term recommended by probation. I believe all of the crimes, with the exception of one that I‟m staying, and that is Number Six, had separate objectives and separate victims and were independent of each other. There was [sic] separate acts of violence against separate victims. And the ones that I‟m imposing consecutive sentences for were committed at different times or separate places, so they don‟t indicate a single period of aberrant behavior.” Section 654, subdivision (a) provides…