People v. Vega
214 Cal. App. 4th 1387
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendants Jose and David Vega were convicted of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and a count of shooting at an occupied vehicle, with gang enhancements and firearm/great bodily injury findings.
- The jury found the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and David had additional firearm use and great bodily injury findings.
- David received a life term with a 15-year minimum plus a 21-year four-month determinate term; Jose received a life term with a 15-year minimum plus a nine-year determinate term.
- The appellate court addressed whether section 1170.1(f) bars stacking firearm and gang enhancements for count 1, and whether the 12022.7 great bodily injury enhancement could be stayed alongside gang enhancements.
- The court held that the 10-year gang enhancement attaches to the violent felony finding, and that the great bodily injury enhancement should be stayed for count 1, with the gang enhancement remaining in effect.
- Regarding Jose on count 2, the gang enhancement is mandatory and cannot be stayed; the court retained authority to strike it under section 186.22, subdivision (g) on remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court impose both 186.22(b)(1)(C) and 12022.5(a) enhancements for count 1? | David argues only the greatest enhancement may apply under 1170.1(f). | The People argue multiple enhancements can coexist because the violent felony finding supports the gang enhancement. | Both enhancements can apply; no 1170.1(f) limitation prevents stacking. |
| Must Jose's count 2 gang enhancement be stayed or imposed, and can it be struck? | The People contend the enhancement must be imposed; the count 2 offense is not subject to 654. | Jose seeks the enhancement to be stayed; 186.22(g) allows striking it in an unusual case. | Gang enhancement for Jose on count 2 must be imposed, but can be struck on remittitur under 186.22(g). |
| Is the great bodily injury enhancement on count 1 properly stayed rather than imposed? | The state argues the bodily injury enhancement remains since it is a separate statutory basis. | Gonzalez line of cases supports staying the enhancement when it is subsumed by a greater enhancement. | The court stayed the 12022.7(a) great bodily injury enhancement and imposed the 186.22(b)(1)(C) gang enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rodriguez, 47 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (held only the greatest enhancement may be imposed under 1170.1(f) when based on firearm use/)
- People v. Morgan, 194 Cal.App.4th 79 (Cal. App. 2011) (discussed stacking firearm and gang enhancements under 1170.1(f))
- People v. Gonzalez, 178 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. App. 2009) (addressed imposing and staying multiple enhancements under 1170.1 and 4.447)
- People v. Ruiz, 69 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. App. 1999) (great bodily injury finding renders offense a violent felony)
- People v. McQueen, 160 Cal.App.4th 27 (Cal. App. 2008) (requires imposing aggregate term before staying prohibited sentence)
- People v. Ahmed, 53 Cal.4th 156 (Cal. 2011) (mandatory nature of gang enhancement when section 186.22(b)(1) applies)