43 Cal.App.5th 527
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Defendant Bedavid Zaldana was convicted of six sex-offense counts for molesting his two daughters (both under 14); five counts included a One Strike multiple-victim aggravator (Pen. Code §667.61(e)(4)).
- Jury found the multiple-victim aggravating circumstance true as to five §288(a)/(b) counts (four separate incidents against the older daughter, one against the younger).
- Trial court sentenced Zaldana to an aggregate 75 years-to-life composed of five consecutive 15-to-life One Strike terms (one 15-to-life stayed under §654).
- Zaldana argued the multiple-victim finding could justify at most two One Strike life terms (one per victim); the Court of Appeal rejected that contention, following precedent permitting separate life terms for multiple victims or separate occasions.
- The court nonetheless held the 15-to-life terms were unauthorized because §667.61(j)(2) mandates 25-to-life for qualifying One Strike offenses against victims under 14; the court remanded for resentencing to impose five 25-to-life terms.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the information (which cited §667.61(b) and (e)) gave constitutionally adequate notice of exposure to §667.61(j)(2)’s longer term and therefore upheld resentencing rather than reversal on notice grounds.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §667.61(e)(4) multiple-victim aggravator permits multiple One Strike life terms for separate offenses/victims | Multiple life terms permitted for separate victims/occasions | Multiple life terms should be limited to two total (one per victim) | Court: Multiple One Strike life terms are permitted per victim and per separate occasion (rejects defendant's limit) |
| Whether imposition of 15-to-life terms (instead of 25-to-life) was permissible when victims were under 14 | 15-to-life sentences were what trial court imposed | 15-to-life was insufficient under §667.61(j)(2); 25-to-life mandatory for victims under 14 | Court: 15-to-life unauthorized; §667.61(j)(2) requires 25-to-life for qualifying counts — remand for resentencing |
| Whether the information provided constitutionally adequate notice that §667.61(j)(2) exposure (25-to-life) could apply | Citing §667.61(b) and (e) (and alleging victims under 14) sufficiently apprised defendant of §667.61(j)(2) exposure | Information failed to cite subdivision (j)(2) specifically; insufficient notice | Court: Notice adequate (follows Vaquera); reference to (b) and (e) plus allegation victims were under 14 put defendant on notice of (j)(2) |
| Whether appellate court should correct sentence or remand and what discretion remains at resentencing | Appellate correction is available but resentencing appropriate to let trial court exercise discretion | Defendant sought relief from longer sentence; preserved challenge to notice | Court: Remand for resentencing. Trial court must impose five 25-to-life terms but may run three §288(a) 25-to-life terms concurrently or consecutively; separate-occasion §288(b) 25-to-life terms must run consecutively |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal.4th 735 (One Strike aggravating circumstances must be pleaded and proved)
- People v. Wutzke, 28 Cal.4th 923 (One Strike contemplates separate life term for each victim on each occasion)
- People v. Valdez, 193 Cal.App.4th 1515 (statutory text supports multiple life terms for multiple offenses/victims)
- People v. Andrade, 238 Cal.App.4th 1274 (rejecting a one-life-term-per-victim limit)
- People v. Morales, 29 Cal.App.5th 471 (collecting authorities rejecting defendant’s limitation argument)
- People v. DeSimone, 62 Cal.App.4th 693 (same)
- People v. Murphy, 65 Cal.App.4th 35 (same)
- In re Vaquera, 39 Cal.App.5th 233 (information alleging §667.61(b) and (e) plus victims under 14 gives adequate notice of §667.61(j)(2))
- People v. Jimenez, 35 Cal.App.5th 373 (contrast holding that information did not give sufficient notice of §667.61(j)(2))
- People v. Vizcarra, 236 Cal.App.4th 422 (appellate courts may correct unauthorized sentences even if correction increases exposure)