People v. McCoy
208 Cal. App. 4th 1333
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- McCoy convicted of burglary and violation of a restraining order arising from an attack on the victim at her apartment.
- Court sentenced with conduct credits limited to 15% of presentence custody under Penal Code § 2933.1.
- Defendant and counsel appealed; issues concern jury response to a jury inquiry and sentencing for the protective-order violation.
- Victim had prior restraining orders; history of domestic violence and alcohol-related incidents.
- Event timeline: March 26–30, 2010—defendant reappears, enters apartment, assaults, rapes, and remains; 911 calls and deputy arrival corroborate antecedent presence.
- Trial court used a factual basis argument to impose consecutive sentence for the protective-order violation despite § 654 considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s response to the jury’s inquiry was prejudicial. | People argued the evidence supported separate arrivals. | McCoy contends no clear separate-factic basis was found. | Affirmed; no reversible error found on this issue. |
| Whether § 654 prevents consecutive punishment for the protective-order violation. | People urged separate arrivals justify separate punishment. | McCoy argues no independent basis for two arrivals. | Section 654 not violated; court could rely on trial evidence to justify punishment. |
| Whether the trial court could base sentencing on facts underlying the verdicts rather than the jury’s explicit findings. | People disagreed with Roberson limitation on factual basis. | McCoy urged strict reliance on verdict-specific bases. | Court properly allowed factual basis beyond explicit verdict findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Liu, 46 Cal.App.4th 1119 (Cal.App. 1996) (identifies substantial-evidence standard for 654)
- People v. Siko, 45 Cal.3d 820 (Cal. 1988) (limits on using alternative facts under 654)
- People v. Centers, 73 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal.App. 1999) (court may identify multiple victims for sentencing)
- People v. Nguyen, 204 Cal.App.3d 181 (Cal.App. 1988) (accomplice punishment where independent purpose shown)
- People v. Bradley, 111 Cal.App.4th 765 (Cal.App. 2003) (distinguishes Nguyen based on independent purpose)
- People v. Roberson, 198 Cal.App.3d 860 (Cal.App. 1988) (disapproved as controlling rule on 654 sentencing basis)
- People v. Coelho, 89 Cal.App.4th 861 (Cal.App. 2001) (discusses Coelho approach to jury trial rights and sentencing)