80 Cal.App.5th 453
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Norman Salazar forcibly confined and brutally assaulted a former girlfriend over ~20 hours: punching, pepper-spraying, biting, threats to kill, disabling her phone, taking keys, and forcing bank trips; victim suffered facial fracture and other injuries.
- Charged with kidnapping (acquitted of that but convicted of the lesser included false imprisonment by violence), attempted robbery (acquitted), and infliction of corporal injury on a dating partner (§ 273.5) (convicted).
- Defendant admitted a prior strike (attempted carjacking) and had an extensive 30-year criminal history with multiple prison terms and recent supervision/parole at time of these offenses.
- Trial court denied a Romero motion to strike the prior strike, refused to stay punishment under § 654 for false imprisonment, imposed consecutive terms (middle term doubled for strike on count 3 plus consecutive term on count 1), and issued a 10-year protective order; aggregate sentence 7 years 4 months.
- On appeal Salazar challenged (1) section 654 stay, (2) denial of Romero motion, and (3) claimed Senate Bill No. 567 (amending Penal Code § 1170) required remand for resentencing; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Salazar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 654 barred separate punishment for false imprisonment (count 1) | Crimes reflected separate objectives (inflicting pain/amusement vs. obtaining money/drugs); divisible conduct | Acts arose from single continuous course; stay required | Affirmed: § 654 inapplicable — separate intents and temporal breaks supported consecutive punishment |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Romero motion to strike prior strike | Strike denial appropriate given violent present offenses and continuous 30-year criminal history including post-strike recidivism | Court should have struck the 19-year-old strike in interest of justice considering mental health/trauma | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court reasonably considered nature, history, and prospects |
| Whether S.B. 567 required remand for resentencing under amended § 1170(b)(6) (trauma mitigation) | Although ameliorative, remand unnecessary because record "clearly indicates" court would not have chosen low term given overwhelming aggravation | Sentencing court lacked chance to apply new statutory low-term presumption for trauma; remand required | Affirmed: remand unnecessary — record shows aggravating factors overwhelmingly outweigh mitigating trauma, so resentencing would be idle |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Corpening, 2 Cal.5th 307 (establishes multiple-intents test for § 654)
- People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (multiple objectives permit separate punishments)
- People v. Brents, 53 Cal.4th 599 (substantial-evidence standard for divisibility findings)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (trial court discretion to dismiss strikes)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (factors and standard for Romero motions)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (remand required when court lacked informed discretion at sentencing)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (ameliorative statutory changes apply to nonfinal convictions)
- People v. Flores, 75 Cal.App.5th 495 (S.B. 567 error can be harmless; appellate harmlessness analysis)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt review for unproven aggravating factors)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (miscarriage-of-justice / reasonable-probability standard for reversal)