People v. Martinez CA2/4

DISCUSSION

Given the trial court’s detailed statement of aggravating circumstances, the record sufficiently explains the court’s reasons for imposing consecutive rather than concurrent terms. The sole issue on appeal is whether the increase in appellant’s aggregate sentence from 116 to 140 years is unlawful. Contending the increase is unauthorized, appellant seeks reinstatement of the 116-year aggregate sentence that was approved in the prior appeal. Respondent agrees that the increase in the aggregate sentence is unlawful, citing People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, 357, which states: “When a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing. [Citation.]” We agree.

The law is well-settled that the increase in aggregate sentence is unauthorized. As pointed out in respondent’s brief, the constitutional prohibition against increasing a defendant’s punishment on resentencing “is necessary to avoid imposing on defendants ‘the cruel choice [of] accepting an erroneous conviction or appealing from it at the risk of incurring greater punishment.’…