Hicks

In People v. Siko (1988) 45 Cal.3d 820, 822 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 755 P.2d 294 ], we held that the enactment of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (c), which permits the imposition of consecutive full-term sentences when a defendant has been convicted of certain enumerated sexual offenses, did not repeal the prohibition of Penal Code section 654 against multiple punishment based upon “the same act or omission.” 1 In this case, we address the question we expressly left unresolved in Siko : whether the enactment of section 667.6, subdivision (c), created an exception to section 654 so as to permit the imposition of consecutive full-term sentences for enumerated offenses constituting separate acts committed during an “indivisible” or “single” transaction. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the enactment had this effect.

Factual and Procedural History

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of six counts of rape (former § 261, subd. (2)), 2 two counts of forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)), two counts of genital penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), and one count of burglary (§ 459). He was sentenced on the burglary count to the upper term of…

In my view, Penal Code section 654 bars imposition of a full, consecutive term of imprisonment for defendant’s burglary conviction. 1 The majority reach a contrary conclusion because they fail to apply standard canons of statutory construction. The result is the addition of three years to an absurd sentence of eighty years in prison.

It is my opinion that many criminal sentences have crossed the bounds of reason in this state. A sentence like the one imposed here, that cannot possibly be completed in the defendant’s lifetime, makes a mockery of the law and amounts to cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, § 17; see Mosk, Nothing Succeeds Like Excess (1993) 26 Loyola L.A. L.Rev. 981.)

Defendant has not challenged his 80-year sentence for the offenses of which he stands convicted, and our order limits the issue presented in this case, so I will offer no more at this time on the constitutional problem presented by this sentence.

However, there is something unseemly in the eagerness of the People to argue that an ambiguous expression of the Legislature be interpreted to provide for the absolute maximum punishment, when defendant already stands sentenced to a term he will…

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sugiyama and Ronald A. Bass, Assistant

Attorneys General, Morris Beatus, Gerald A. Engler, Stan Helfman, Thomas A. Brady and Enid A. Camps, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

GEORGE, J.

In People v. Siko (1988) 45 Cal.3d 820, 822 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 110 , 755 P.2d 294 ], we held that the enactment of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (c), which permits the imposition of consecutive full-term sentences when a defendant has been convicted of certain enumerated sexual offenses, did not repeal the prohibition of Penal Code section 654 against multiple punishment based upon "the same act or omission." [1] In this case, we address the question we expressly left unresolved in Siko : whether the enactment of section 667.6, subdivision (c), created an exception to section 654 so as to permit the imposition of consecutive full-term sentences for enumerated offenses constituting separate acts committed during an "indivisible" or "single" transaction. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the enactment had this effect.

Following a jury trial, defendant was…