People v. Deville CA2/1, B251839

Defendant Patrick Deville was convicted of forcible rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, oral copulation of a minor, administering a controlled substance to a minor, and administering a controlled substance (initial trial).
In the first appeal, the court reversed on the administering a controlled substance to a minor and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing with guidance on concurrent vs. consecutive terms and staying certain enhancements.
At resentencing on October 10, 2013, the trial court imposed consecutive terms on counts 1 and 2, finding the crimes had predominantly independent objectives, and resentenced to 65 years to life total.
The abstract of judgment did not reflect stayed prior-term enhancements on count 1, and it mis-listed the Health and Safety Code violation for count 2; the prior appeal directed corrections, which remained unmade.
The court also noted presentence custody credits needed calculation based on time spent in custody through the resentencing date (October 10, 2013).
On appeal, Deville challenged the consecutive sentencing framework, while the Attorney General conceded errors in presentence custody credits and the abstract of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentencing on counts 1 and 2	Deville argues jury must find facts for consecutive terms.	Deville asserts court-made findings impermissible under Apprendi/Blakely framework.	Consecutive terms proper; Ice permits court findings.
Abstract of judgment corrections (prior term enhancements)	Abstract should reflect stayed enhancements and correct offense statute for count 2.	Corrections were required by prior remand.	Remand to correct abstract of judgment.
Presentence custody credits calculation	Credits must reflect total actual days in custody as of resentencing.	Agreement with correction; no substantive counterpoints offered.	Remand to recalculate credits to reflect total custody days.

Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Sixth Amendment does not require jury findings for consecutive sentences)
In re Coley, 55 Cal.4th 524 (2012) (California recognizes non-jury factual findings for consecutive sentencing)
Buckhalter v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 1 (2001) (actual days in custody credited on resentencing when sentence modified)