People v. Williams

Good Law
19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 619·2004 Cal. LEXIS 9658·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12659·34 Cal. 4th 397·98 P.3d 876
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 18, 2004No. S110377California2,631 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kennard, J.

*400 Opinion

In People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ] (Tassell), this court held that when imposing a determinate sentence on a recidivist offender convicted of multiple offenses, a trial court is to impose an enhancement for a prior conviction only once to increase the aggregate term, and not separately to increase the principal or subordinate term imposed for each new offense. 1 (Tassell, at pp. 89-92.) Here, the Court of Appeal concluded that Tassell’s holding does not apply to multiple indeterminate third strike sentences imposed under the “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, hereafter the Three Strikes law). 2 We agree that Tassell is not controlling in this different context, and that a prior conviction enhancement may be added to the third strike sentence for each new offense.

I

A jury convicted defendant Anthony Maurice Williams of forcible rape in concert (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 264.1), forcible oral copulation in concert (§ 288a, subd. (d)), and forcible sodomy in concert (§ 286, subd. (d)), and it found that he had suffered two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies under section…

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.