People v. Sencion
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Santiago Gerardo Sencion Jr. was convicted of second degree murder (count 1), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 2 and 4), and discharge of a firearm with gross negligence (count 3).
- The jury found he personally discharged a firearm in the murder and used a firearm in the two assaults.
- He was sentenced to 40 years to life in state prison.
- The trial court failed to award 1,341 days of presentence custody credit; the issue was raised on appeal and agreed by the parties.
- Restitution fines were imposed, but with errors related to per-count imposing and applicability on stayed counts; the court analyzed 1202.4 and 1202.45 expenditures.
- The trial court later corrected the nunc pro tunc sentence for count 2 to reflect concurrent sentencing with count 1; the abstract needed correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presentence custody credit entitlement | Sencion argues for 1,341 days credit. | Sencion's position echoed by the state; credit should be awarded. | Judgment amended to award 1,341 days credit. |
| Restitution fines: per-count imposition and stayed counts | Fine imposition should apply to each count including stayed counts; prior per-count approach was error. | Only one 1202.4(b) fine and one 1202.45 fine applicable; staying counts should not change total fines. | Only one 1202.4(b) and one 1202.45 fine apply; abstract need not be amended for total; per-position discussion clarified. |
| Restitution fines applicability to stayed counts | Fines based on all counts including stayed counts. | Stayed counts should not drive punitive fines. | Fines based on stayed counts were improper; however, total stayed within statutory range; no prejudice. |
| Count 2 sentencing concurrent with count 1 | Original nunc pro tunc correction properly set the term. | Abstract should reflect concurrency with count 1. | Abstract of judgment must reflect that count 2 runs concurrent with count 1. |
| Court fees and assessments per count | Court security fee ($40) and court facilities assessment ($30) apply per count, including stayed counts. | Fees may not apply per stayed counts under section 654; some districts treated them differently. | Fees must be imposed per count, including stayed counts; abstract reflects per-count totals. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 183 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. App. 2010) (presentence custody credit rule cited)
- People v. Taylor, 119 Cal.App.4th 628 (Cal. App. 2004) (presentence custody credit calculations)
- People v. Soria, 48 Cal.4th 58 (Cal. 2010) (restitution fines cap and propriety)
- People v. Schoeb, 132 Cal.App.4th 861 (Cal. App. 2005) (restitution fines multiple counts generally improper)
- People v. Ferris, 82 Cal.App.4th 1272 (Cal. App. 2000) (restitution fines framework)
- People v. Le, 136 Cal.App.4th 925 (Cal. App. 2006) (staged duties of restitution fines with multiple counts)
- People v. Carlson, 200 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. App. 2011) (section 654 obligations and stayed counts)
- People v. Castillo, 182 Cal.App.4th 1413 (Cal. App. 2010) (court facilities assessment not punitive; per-count imposition)
- People v. Crittle, 154 Cal.App.4th 368 (Cal. App. 2007) (court security fees unaffected by 654 stay)
- People v. Sharret, 191 Cal.App.4th 859 (Cal. App. 2011) (654 stay does not extend to court security fee)
- People v. Pearson, 42 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1986) ([654(a)] prohibition on punishment for stayed counts)