People v. Olguin CA1/3
A145224
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Defendant Leo Ray Olguin drove recklessly on two occasions in December 2009; a December 23 high‑speed chase ended in a crash that killed three back‑seat passengers and seriously injured a front‑seat passenger.
- Defendant was convicted of three counts of second‑degree murder (counts 4–6) and multiple vehicle‑code offenses arising from both incidents, among other convictions.
- Trial court initially sentenced an aggregate of 110 years 4 months to life, doubling terms under the Three Strikes law; this court reversed in part on appeal and remanded for resentencing because counsel failed to object to the absence of on‑the‑record sentencing reasons.
- On remand the court reimposed an aggregate sentence of 80 years 4 months to life, explained some discretionary choices on the record, and imposed concurrent or consecutive indeterminate terms for the murder counts (count 4 consecutive; counts 5 and 6 concurrent with each other but consecutive to count 4).
- This appeal challenges (1) failure to stay sentences on counts 2, 8, and 9 as directed; (2) use of the injury element to impose the upper term on count 7; (3) adequacy of reasons for running count 4 consecutive to the determinate term; and (4) propriety of factors used to impose a consecutive term on count 5.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Olguin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court failed to stay sentences on counts 2, 8, 9 as remand required | People did not oppose amending judgment to comply | Olguin argued remand required stays rather than concurrent terms | Court ordered abstract amended to stay counts 2, 8, 9 (remand compliance) |
| Whether court erred in imposing upper term on count 7 by relying on injury (an element) | Injury was duplicative of an element; but other aggravation supported upper term | Olguin argued injury (element) cannot be used to increase term | Court agreed injury duplicated an element but found prior similar reckless conduct 12 days earlier independently supported the upper term |
| Whether court failed to comply with remand by not stating reasons for running count 4 consecutive to the determinate term | People noted remand focused on murder concurrency among counts 4–6, not consecutiveness to determinate term | Olguin argued remand required explicit reasons; failure was reversible and counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court held prior opinion didn’t expressly direct statement on that specific decision; ample reasons in the record justify consecutive term so no reversible error |
| Whether consecutive term on count 5 improperly relied on irrelevant factors | People relied on defendant’s parole status, escape from halfway house, intoxication and victim non‑participation | Olguin argued the court used inappropriate/irrelevant factors | Court held unchallenged proper factors (parole/absconding/intoxication) amply justified consecutive term |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clancey, 56 Cal.4th 562 (court may select upper, middle, lower term; must state reasons)
- People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622 (single aggravating factor suffices for upper term)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (sentencing review standard; court may consider broad aggravation)
- People v. Caesar, 167 Cal.App.4th 1050 (broad discretion on consecutive vs. concurrent sentences)
- People v. King, 183 Cal.App.4th 1281 (one criterion suffices for consecutive sentence)
- People v. Coelho, 89 Cal.App.4th 861 (no remand when stating reasons would be idle act)
- People v. Williams, 46 Cal.App.4th 1767 (record justification can foreclose remand for statement of reasons)
- People v. Sanchez, 23 Cal.App.4th 1680 (no reversal for insubstantial sentencing error when outcome would not differ)
- Butler v. Superior Court, 104 Cal.App.4th 979 (directions on remand are binding on trial court)