Goodliffe

Does a general statement of legislative intent trump the plain meaning of a statute? The issue arises in the application of subdivision (c) of Penal Code section 667.6. It provides that a “full, separate, and consecutive term” may be imposed for each violation of a violent sexual offense listed in subdivision (e), but only if the “crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion.” (Italics added.) Notwithstanding the plain meaning of this provision, the trial court imposed a full, consecutive term on defendant Duke Austin Goodliffe for a crime committed against a separate victim. He appeals.

Defendant pleaded no contest to four sexual offenses involving four young children including one offense specified in section 667.6, subdivision (e) (count 9). He was sentenced to 19 years four months in state prison, including a full, consecutive term for count 9 under subdivision (c) of section 667.6. We requested supplemental letter briefs addressing whether defendant was properly sentenced to a full, consecutive term under section 667.6.

On appeal defendant claims that he is not subject to subdivision (c) because the other crimes of which he was convicted did not involve the…