Lai

People v. Lai

Bad Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 1227·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 578·2006 Daily Journal DAR 5044·42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 444·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3505
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 2006B165662California11,673 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

INTRODUCTION

For thefts of more than $100,000, but less than $500,000, may a defendant be punished by consecutive enhancements under both Penal Code sections 186.11, subdivision (a)(3), and 12022.6, subdivision (a)? Further, if the defendant is sentenced to state prison, do sections 1202.4, subdivision (f), and 186.11, subdivision (d), authorize an order of restitution for losses caused by crimes other than those for which the defendant was convicted? Finally, if the court imposes a fine under section 186.11, subdivision (c), does subdivision (1) of that statute preclude imposing a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45)?

Deciding these issues in the published portion of our opinion, we first hold that when a defendant is subject to the additional prison terms of both sections 186.11, subdivision (a)(3) and 12022.6, subdivision (a), the court must impose both terms, but stay execution of the term imposed under section 12022.6, subdivision (a). Next, we hold that for nonprobationary sentences, neither section 1202.4, subdivision (f) nor section 186.11, subdivision (d) permits restitution for losses caused by crimes for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.