People v. Cleveland

In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ], the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum for the crime must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of Apprendi , Leo Cleveland contends the issue of whether under Penal Code section 654 1 a defendant has a separate “intent and objective” for multiple offenses occurring during a course of criminal conduct, is a factual *266 question for a jury to determine under the “reasonable doubt” standard. Consequently, Cleveland asserts his consecutive sentences for attempted murder and robbery must be vacated because the trial court, rather than the jury, made the relevant section 654 factual determinations and because the trial court applied a standard of proof less stringent than “reasonable doubt.” In addition, Cleveland claims the court erred in failing to “stay” his robbery sentence under section 654.

Cleveland’s contentions lack merit. In our view, section 654 does not run afoul of the rule announced in Apprendi . The question of whether section 654 operates to “stay” a particular sentence…

I concur in the judgment, with the exception of the consecutive sentence which added 25 years to life to the already lengthy term of 29 years to life the court imposed.

In my view, the United States Supreme Court opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey 1 and the rationale it embodies—requires the jury rather than the trial judge to determine whether a defendant committed these offenses with multiple objectives and thus was susceptible to consecutive sentences rather *273 than concurrent sentences for this course of criminal conduct. Furthermore, while I might agree substantial evidence supported the trial judge’s finding appellant entertained multiple objectives, I disagree the evidence on that issue was so overwhelming we can fairly conclude no reasonable juror could entertain a reasonable doubt on that score. Accordingly, it cannot be said a jury necessarily would have reached the same verdict on the multiple objectives element and thus I would reverse and instruct the trial court to modify the sentence by converting the 25 years to life sentence imposed on the robbery count from a consecutive to a concurrent sentence.

1. Apprendi requires a jury to determine whether a defendant…

In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum for the crime must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of Apprendi Leo Cleveland contends the issue of whether under Penal Code section 654 [1] a defendant has a separate "intent and objective" for multiple offenses occurring during a course of criminal conduct, is a factual question for a jury to determine under the "reasonable doubt" standard. Consequently, Cleveland asserts his consecutive sentences for attempted murder and robbery must be vacated because the trial court, rather than the jury, made the relevant section 654 factual determinations and because the trial court applied a standard of proof less stringent than "reasonable doubt." In addition, Cleveland claims the court erred in failing to "stay" his robbery sentence under section 654.

Cleveland's contentions lack merit. In our view, section 654 does not run afoul of the rule announced in Apprendi The question of whether section 654 operates to "stay" a particular sentence does…