People v. Torres
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Victim (19) was followed from a college event, knocked unconscious, robbed, and sexually assaulted (digital penetration, attempted intercourse, sexual battery by restraint, forcible rape). DNA and physical evidence linked defendant; he admitted taking the victim's wallet and using her cards.
- Defendant convicted by jury of second-degree robbery with great bodily injury enhancement, five counts of digital penetration, sexual battery by restraint, and forcible rape; court found four prior strikes and sentenced to consecutive 25-to-life terms totaling 246 years-to-life.
- Defendant appealed multiple rulings: sufficiency of great-bodily-injury enhancement, admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, life term under Proposition 36 for sexual battery, consecutive sentencing for digital penetration counts, and failure to stay the sexual-battery term under Penal Code § 654.
- Trial court sentenced under Three Strikes law and concluded it had no discretion to impose concurrent terms for multiple serious/violent felonies.
- Appellate court affirmed most issues but held the court erred in believing it had no discretion to order concurrent sentences for the digital penetration and sexual-battery convictions and remanded for resentencing on those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of great bodily injury enhancement to robbery | Evidence supported victim’s head blow and injuries; enhancement proper | Insufficient evidence that robbery caused great bodily injury | Affirmed — enhancement upheld |
| Admission of challenged evidence (relevance/prejudice) | Evidence was relevant to identity/intent and admissible | Evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor’s arguments were proper and grounded in record | Misconduct during closing warranted reversal | Affirmed — no prejudicial misconduct found |
| Life term under Prop 36 for §243.4 (sexual battery by restraint) | People plead that conviction required §290 registration; Prop 36 disqualification satisfied | Defendant: People failed to plead §1170.12(c)(2)(C)(ii) specifically so life term improper | Affirmed — pleading that §290 registration applied was sufficient; life term permitted under Prop 36 framework |
| Consecutive sentencing for multiple digital penetration counts under Three Strikes | People: Prop 36 removed discretion; consecutive terms mandatory for multiple serious/violent felonies | Defendant: Hendrix preserves discretion to impose concurrent sentences for crimes on same occasion or arising from same operative facts | Reversed in part — trial court erred; Hendrix principles still largely apply; remand for determination whether crimes were same occasion/operative facts and for resentencing (consider §667.6(d) separate-occasions rule and other statutes) |
| Stay under §654 for sexual battery by restraint | Defendant: §654 should bar multiple punishments if offenses not severable | People: §654 not addressed below; sentencing/concurrency separate issue | Remanded — trial court must decide on §654 stay and whether sentence runs concurrent or consecutive under Three Strikes and §667.6(c)/(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendrix v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 508 (Cal. 1997) (courts may impose concurrent sentences for multiple serious/violent felonies committed on same occasion or arising from same operative facts)
- Mancebo v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2002) (pleading requirement for specific sentencing circumstances under One Strike statute)
- Deloza v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1998) (analysis distinguishing §654 and Three Strikes same-occasion/operative-facts inquiry)
- Lawrence v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 219 (Cal. 2000) (elaboration on same-occasion and same set of operative facts under Three Strikes)
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (overview of Prop 36 changes to Three Strikes sentencing)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court discretion to strike priors for sentencing purposes)