People v. Catarino, 529 P.3d 60

Defendant Edgar Sandoval Catarino was tried for multiple forcible lewd-act counts alleged to have occurred between June 2015 and March 2016; the jury convicted him on six counts, convicted a seventh of attempt, and acquitted one count.
Each count alleged the same date range; the jury returned separate verdicts but did not specify precise dates for each count.
At sentencing the trial court found the seven convictions were committed on seven "separate occasions" and imposed full, separate, consecutive terms under Penal Code § 667.6(d).
Under California law, determinate sentencing (§ 1170.1) normally limits subordinate consecutive terms to one‑third of the middle term (here ~2 years 8 months), but § 667.6(d) requires full consecutive terms (here minimum 5 years) when offenses involve separate victims or separate occasions.
Catarino appealed, arguing Apprendi/Alleyne required those "separate occasions" facts to be found by a jury; the Court of Appeal applied Oregon v. Ice and upheld the sentencing (but remanded the attempt count). The Supreme Court granted review amid a split of authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 667.6(d) violates the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi/Alleyne by allowing judge‑found facts to increase the mandatory minimum exposure for subordinate counts	The People: § 667.6(d) regulates how multiple sentences run and falls within Ice's exception to Apprendi/Alleyne; judicial factfinding about consecutive sentences is permitted	Catarino: § 667.6(d) effectively raises the floor for subordinate counts from the § 1170.1 one‑third middle term to the full statutory term, so those facts must be found by a jury under Apprendi/Alleyne	Court: Affirmed. § 667.6(d) is covered by Ice; Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply because the statute governs the historical sentencing function of consecutive vs concurrent terms and does not alter the statutory term for any single offense
Whether Johnson (contrary appellate decision) correctly held § 667.6(d) unconstitutional	The People: Johnson misapplied Apprendi by importing § 1170.1 aggregation rules into the analysis	Catarino (and Johnson): § 667.6(d) raises the effective minimum sentence for subordinate counts, triggering Apprendi/Alleyne	Court: Disapproved Johnson to the extent it held § 667.6(d) unconstitutional; Ice rationale controls

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (Apprendi rule applies to facts that increase mandatory minimum)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (judge‑found facts necessary to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences fall outside Apprendi/Alleyne)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. (2020) (Sixth Amendment jury trial right applies to the states)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (jury must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury must find every element of the offense)
People v. Scott, 61 Cal.4th 363 (2015) (discussing Ice and the inapplicability of Apprendi to judicial findings for consecutive terms)
People v. Wandrey, 80 Cal.App.5th 962 (2022) (appellate decision holding § 667.6(d) consistent with Ice)
People v. Johnson, 88 Cal.App.5th 487 (2023) (contrary appellate decision holding § 667.6(d) violated the Sixth Amendment)