People v. Sanchez CA2/4
B266486
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2016Background
- Defendant Miguel Angel Sanchez, a family friend, was convicted by a jury of (1) oral copulation of a child under 10 and (2) a forcible lewd act on the same seven‑year‑old victim based on separate acts in the family kitchen. DNA from the victim’s vaginal swab matched defendant.
- The jury found defendant guilty on both counts; defendant admitted prior convictions. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences: 55 years‑to‑life on count 1 and 40 years on count 2 (total 95 years‑to‑life).
- Defense requested the sentences run concurrently under Penal Code § 654, arguing the acts were part of a single continuous course of conduct. The trial court denied the request, finding the acts distinct from the child’s perspective and because force/restraint accompanied the second act.
- On appeal, defendant argued the court applied the wrong legal standard (considering the victim’s perspective) and that § 654 should bar consecutive punishment for essentially a single objective.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the two sexual acts were separate and distinct offenses with independent objectives, so § 654 did not bar consecutive punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 654 bars consecutive sentences for two sexual acts committed against the same child in close time proximity | The People argued the acts were separate offenses with independent objectives (oral copulation and then forcible mouth contact), so consecutive punishment is allowed | Sanchez argued the conduct was an indivisible course of conduct with a single objective (sexual gratification), so § 654 permits only one punishment | Court held the offenses were distinct in intent/objective; § 654 did not bar consecutive sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (Cal. 1989) (§ 654 applies to indivisible course of conduct; defendant's intent/objective controls)
- People v. Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1979) (single overriding intent of sexual gratification is too broad to make separate offenses indivisible)
- People v. Castro, 27 Cal.App.4th 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (multiple sex offenses close in time may be separately punishable if distinct and not means to another)
- People v. Marks, 184 Cal.App.3d 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (one offense not incidental to another where not means to achieve the other)
- People v. Correa, 54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012) (purpose of § 654 is to proportion punishment to culpability)
- People v. Coelho, 89 Cal.App.4th 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (no remand required where clarifying reasons would be idle because outcome would not change)