California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Alcarez, B242197 (Cal. App. 2014):
Finally, we note a sentencing error not raised by the parties. For each attempted murder count (counts 2 through 8), the trial court incorrectly imposed one-third the midterm, plus enhancements, to run consecutive to the indeterminate term for the murder count (count 1). However, "[g]enerally, indeterminate term crimes and determinate term crimes are subject to different sentencing schemes. [Citation.] 'Such sentencing has been conceptualized as sentencing in separate boxes.' [Citation.] The trial court separately determines the sentences to be imposed for each category of crime, and then 'combines the two to reach an aggregate total sentence. Nothing in the sentencing for the determinate term crimes is affected by the sentence for the indeterminate term crime[s].' [Citation.] When the defendant is sentenced to determinate and indeterminate terms, the determinate term is served first." (People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th
Page 24
204, 211.) In the instant case, under section 1170.1, the court should have chosen a determinate term for one of the attempted murder counts from the triad of available sentences for that crime (5, 7, or 9 years ( 664)) plus applicable enhancements, and then, consecutive to that term, imposed terms of one-third the midterm (plus enhancements) for the remaining attempted murder counts. The court then should have combined the sentences on those counts with the indeterminate term (plus the applicable enhancement) for the murder count (count 1) to reach a total aggregate sentence, with the determinate sentence on the attempted murder counts to be served first. Because an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time (People v. Reyes (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 852, 857), we must remand for resentencing.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.