People v. Mancha CA4/1, D084187

Keith Mancha was convicted by a jury of three counts: oral copulation of an unconscious person, forcible sexual penetration, and forcible rape, all involving the same victim, Jane Doe, after a party at Mancha's house.
Jane Doe testified she was intoxicated, passed out, and was sexually assaulted by Mancha while unconscious and after waking up.
Mancha was sentenced to a total of 10 years in prison, with consecutive sentences for each count.
On appeal, Mancha argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on battery as a lesser included offense and by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.
Mancha, with agreement from trial counsel, expressly declined lesser included offense instructions at trial for tactical reasons.
The trial court justified consecutive sentencing based on separate acts of sexual violence for each count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to instruct on lesser included offense	Doctrine of invited error bars the argument	Should have instructed on battery as lesser offense	Invited error doctrine bars appeal on this ground
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing	Court had discretion; separate acts of violence justify it	Offenses were nearly simultaneous; should be concurrent	No abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive terms
Use of multiple sentencing factors	Consecutive terms justified solely on separate acts of violence	Court improperly considered irrelevant aggravating factors	Court relied only on proper factor for these terms
Standard for separate acts vs. separate occasions	Rule 4.425(a)(2) applies, not Sec. 667.6(d) standard	Case law under Sec. 667.6(d) should control interpretation	Rule 4.425(a)(2) is distinct and was properly applied

People v. Shockley, 58 Cal.4th 400 (Cal. 2013) (sets out sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offenses if warranted by evidence)
People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 2013) (obligation to instruct on lesser included offenses limited to those supported by evidence)
People v. Rodriguez, 130 Cal.App.4th 1257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court’s discretion regarding concurrent or consecutive sentences)
People v. Coffman and Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) (invited error doctrine precludes defendant from raising error on appeal induced by their own conduct)
People v. Horning, 34 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2004) (defendant precluded from complaining about error resulting from their own tactical choice)