People v. Samm CA3, C090684

Background

Defendant Sterling Samm, Jr. had a four-year dating relationship with victim Nancy; multiple violent incidents occurred at a motel in July 2018 and about six months later.
At the first motel incident defendant damaged a parked car, screamed at Nancy, then entered Tristanna’s car with her two minor sons and forced the driver to circle the motel; police arrived and defendant was arrested; the two boys were under 14.
Months later, in the motel room, defendant allegedly choked, pushed, put a blanket over Nancy’s face, hit her, threatened to kill her, and caused visible bruises and a lip injury; Nancy escaped after cutting defendant’s leg with a key.
Jury convictions: three counts of kidnapping (Pen. Code § 207), vandalism (§ 594), two counts of infliction of corporal injury on a dating partner (§ 273.5), criminal threat (§ 422), and false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237); enhancements included a prior strike and a serious felony allegation (the latter dismissed at sentencing).
Trial court sentenced to an aggregate 48 years 8 months: kidnapping counts treated as consecutive middle terms (two doubled for the strike), other counts given concurrent or one-third middle-term sentences; defendant appealed raising sentencing and conviction consolidation issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by imposing full middle-term consecutive sentences on kidnapping counts 1 & 3 and failed to recognize discretion to run them concurrently	The People relied on § 1170.1(b) (and the probation report) to support consecutive full middle terms for subordinate kidnapping convictions involving separate victims	Samm argued § 1170.1(a) required one-third middle term and that the court was misled into thinking consecutive sentences were mandatory and thus failed to exercise discretion to impose concurrent terms	The court held § 1170.1(b) applies to multiple kidnappings of separate victims, so full middle terms on subordinate counts were proper; because counts 1 and 3 arose from the same occasion the trial court had discretion to run them concurrently, but the record does not show the judge misunderstood that discretion, so no remand on this ground was required
Whether sentences for one corporal-injury count (count 6) and false imprisonment (count 8) must be stayed under § 654	The People argued the separate injuries and conduct supported separate punishments	Samm argued counts 6 and 8 were part of a single continuous course of conduct with count 5 and thus their sentences must be stayed under § 654	The court found evidence could support either conclusion; because the trial court had made mixed factual statements and did not clearly apply § 654, the matter is remanded for the court to clarify whether sentences on counts 6 and 8 must be stayed and to resentence as appropriate
Whether two convictions for corporal injury (§ 273.5) should be consolidated into one count	The People argued each distinct application of force causing a separate injury supports a separate § 273.5 conviction	Samm argued § 273.5 is a course-of-conduct crime and multiple injuries during one incident should be one violation	The court followed precedent permitting multiple § 273.5 convictions where separate applications of force produced separate injuries; convictions on counts 5 and 6 are supported by substantial evidence and are proper

Key Cases Cited

People v. Eddahbi, 199 Cal.App.3d 1135 (Cal. 1988) (interpreting application of full middle term for subordinate kidnapping convictions)
People v. Hendrix, 16 Cal.4th 508 (Cal. 1997) (trial courts have discretion to impose concurrent sentences where serious felonies occur on same occasion)
People v. Torres, 23 Cal.App.5th 185 (Cal. 2018) (discussing trial court discretion on concurrency after Proposition 36)
People v. Gangl, 42 Cal.App.5th 58 (Cal. 2019) (agreeing with Torres that courts retain discretion to impose concurrent sentences in certain cases)
People v. Marcus, 45 Cal.App.5th 201 (Cal. 2020) (same as Gangl/Torres)
People v. Woodworth, 245 Cal.App.4th 1473 (Cal. 2016) (contrast case where sentencing court expressly thought it lacked discretion)
People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. 2007) (remand required when record shows trial court proceeded under erroneous assumption it lacked discretion)
People v. Fuhrman, 16 Cal.4th 930 (Cal. 1997) (presumption that trial court understood its sentencing discretion when record is silent)
People v. Monarrez, 66 Cal.App.4th 710 (Cal. 1998) (section 654 prohibits multiple punishments for same act; proper remedy is to stay execution on one offense)
People v. Johnson, 150 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Cal. 2007) (multiple § 273.5 convictions permitted where separate applications of force produced separate injuries)
People v. Reed, 38 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2006) (section 954 permits multiple charges/convictions; § 654 limits multiple punishments)