People v. Torres CA4/2
E075636
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- Defendant Angelo Ysidro Torres lived with the victim, a 12‑year‑old cousin; he forced the victim into the bathroom and anally penetrated her, withdrawing and reinserting his penis approximately 11 times, also inserting fingers and attempting oral penetration; incident lasted ~1 hour.
- Second amended information charged multiple forcible sexual offenses and kidnapping; plea agreement: defendant pleaded guilty to counts 1 (sodomy), 2 (lewd act by force), and 5 (sodomy) in exchange for a 27‑year prison term (11 + 5 + 11) and lifetime registration.
- At plea and sentencing hearings defendant argued Penal Code § 654 should bar multiple punishments as the acts were part of a single course of conduct; the trial court found the acts were separate and denied application of § 654.
- Defendant signed a written appellate‑waiver paragraph and accepted the specified 27‑year term; he later appealed and sought a certificate of probable cause (granted).
- Appellate court found a clerical error: counts 3 and 4 and certain enhancement allegations were not formally dismissed in the minute order despite being part of the plea bargain, and directed the trial court to dismiss them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Torres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 654 required staying sentence on count 5 (second sodomy count) | Counts reflect separate and distinct penetrations; each penetration completes a separate violation | The acts were one continuous encounter; multiple counts punish a single course of conduct and § 654 should apply | Waived on appeal; on merits § 654 does not apply because each penetration is a separate offense (court affirmed count 5) |
| Whether defendant waived his right to challenge the sentence on appeal | Defendant executed an express written appellate waiver and accepted the specified 27‑year term, thereby waiving § 654 challenge under plea doctrine | Relies on rule 4.412(b) and argues preservation because he raised § 654 at plea recitation | Waiver valid: written appellate waiver and acceptance of bargain preclude the claim on appeal |
| Whether the trial court must correct clerical failures to reflect the plea bargain (dismiss counts/enhancements) | Plea bargain intended dismissal of counts 3 & 4 and certain enhancements; minute order reflects dismissal though the court omitted oral dismissal | No appellate contest below | Court ordered trial court to dismiss counts 3 & 4 and enhancement allegations to correct clerical error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (plea bargains may include appellate waivers)
- People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (acceptance of specified sentence as part of plea can imply waiver of sentencing rules like § 654)
- People v. Clem, 104 Cal.App.3d 337 (multiple penetrations are separate punishable acts; § 654 does not bar punishment for each penetration)
- People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (each penetration, however slight, completes a new violation for sodomy/rape statutes)
- People v. Liu, 46 Cal.App.4th 1119 (purpose of § 654 is to avoid multiple punishment for a single act or indivisible course of conduct)
- People v. Cisneros‑Ramirez, 29 Cal.App.5th 393 (validity requirements for express appellate waivers)
- People v. Schultz, 238 Cal.App.2d 804 (clerical errors can be corrected by the court)
- In re Candelario, 3 Cal.3d 702 (trial court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records)