Title: P. v. Williams

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

1 
Filed 10/18/04 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S110377 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 4/1 D038602 
ANTHONY MAURICE WILLIAMS, 
) 
 
 
) 
San Diego County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. SCE 207131 
___________________________________ ) 
 
In People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 (Tassell), this court held that when 
imposing a determinate sentence on a recidivist offender convicted of multiple 
offenses, a trial court is to impose an enhancement for a prior conviction only once 
to increase the aggregate term, and not separately to increase the principal or 
subordinate term imposed for each new offense.1  (Tassell, at pp. 89-92.)  Here, 
the Court of Appeal concluded that Tassell’s holding does not apply to multiple 
indeterminate third strike sentences imposed under the “Three Strikes and You’re 
Out Law” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, hereafter the Three Strikes 
law).2  We agree that Tassell is not controlling in this different context, and that a 
                                             
 
1  
We overruled Tassell on an unrelated point in People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 
Cal.4th 380, 401. 
2  
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise 
stated. 
 
2 
prior conviction enhancement may be added to the third strike sentence for each 
new offense. 
I 
A jury convicted defendant Anthony Maurice Williams of forcible rape in 
concert (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 264.1), forcible oral copulation in concert (§ 288a, 
subd. (d)), and forcible sodomy in concert (§ 286, subd. (d)), and it found that he 
had suffered two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies under section 
667, subdivision (a)(1) (requiring an additional five-year term for each 
conviction), and under the Three Strikes law.  The record shows that the crimes 
were particularly callous and brutal.  Defendant and his companion not only 
forced the victim—a woman they had met earlier in the day—to orally copulate 
them and then raped and sodomized her, they forced her to get in a trash can, 
stomped on her head, and urinated on her. 
In a separate, unrelated case, defendant was convicted of both residential 
burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. 
Code, § 10851), and he was found to have the same two prior convictions.  (For 
convenience, we will refer to this as the burglary case.) 
The trial court pronounced sentence in both cases on the same day.  In the 
burglary case, the court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life for the 
burglary, plus an additional five-year term for each of the prior serious felony 
convictions, for an aggregate sentence of 35 years to life.  Sentence on the Vehicle 
Code offense was stayed under Penal Code section 654.  In this case, the trial 
court imposed three concurrent sentences of 25 years to life for the three felonies 
(see § 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(ii)), plus five years for each of the two prior serious 
felony 
 
3 
convictions, for an aggregate sentence of 35 years of life, to run consecutively to 
the sentence imposed in the burglary case, for an overall net sentence of 70 years 
to life.3  At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer recommended that the 
two five-year terms for the prior serious felony convictions be stayed in this case, 
because they had been imposed for the same prior convictions in the burglary 
case, but the trial court rejected the recommendation, stating that “it’s the court’s 
view that the court is mandated to impose those [two five-year] enhancements in 
this present case notwithstanding the similar imposition of such enhancements in 
the other case.” 
On defendant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all 
respects.  The court rejected defendant’s contention that the trial court had erred in 
imposing five-year enhancements for prior serious felony convictions in this case 
after the same prior convictions had been used to enhance defendant’s sentence in 
the burglary case.  The court rejected defendant’s argument that section 1170.1 
permitted the enhancements to be imposed only once, concluding instead that 
section 1170.1 did not apply to the calculation of indeterminate sentences imposed 
under the Three Strikes law. 
We granted defendant’s petition for review. 
II 
Subdivision (a) of section 667 (section 667(a)), as here relevant, provides 
that “any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted 
of a serious felony . . . shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the 
                                             
 
3  
More precisely, the sentence consisted of a determinate term of 20 years to 
be followed by two consecutive indeterminate life sentences, each having a 
minimum term of 25 years.  (See § 669 [requiring that determinate terms under 
§ 667 be served before consecutively imposed life sentences].) 
 
4 
court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior 
conviction on charges brought and tried separately.”  Section 667(a), which was 
adopted by voter initiative in 1982, does not expressly address the situation in 
which a defendant with a prior conviction for a serious felony is thereafter 
convicted of more than one serious felony offense.  It does not state whether, in 
that situation, the sentencing court is to add a five-year enhancement separately to 
the sentence for each new felony conviction or instead is to impose the 
enhancement only once to add a single five-year term to the overall sentence for 
all new offenses. 
In 1984, this court addressed that issue in Tassell, supra, 36 Cal.3d 77.  We 
concluded that, on the facts presented there, the answer was to be found in section 
1170.1, enacted as part of the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act (Stats. 1976, 
ch. 1139).  Section 1170.1 generally governs the calculation and imposition of a 
determinate sentence when a defendant has been convicted of more than one 
felony offense.  It then read, and still reads:  “Except as otherwise provided by 
law, and subject to Section 654, when any person is convicted of two or more 
felonies, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or 
courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same or by a different court, and 
a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed under Sections 669 and 1170, the 
aggregate term of imprisonment for all these convictions shall be the sum of the 
principal term, the subordinate term, and any additional term imposed for 
applicable enhancements for prior convictions, prior prison terms, and Section 
12022.1.”  (Italics added.) 
In Tassell, supra, 36 Cal.3d 77, we explained how section 1170.1 affects 
the imposition of sentence enhancements:  “Section 1170.1 refers to two kinds of 
enhancements:  (1) those which go to the nature of the offender; and (2) those 
which go to the nature of the offense.  Enhancements for prior convictions—
 
5 
authorized by sections 667.5, 667.6, and 12022.1—are of the first sort.  The 
second kind of enhancements—those which arise from the circumstances of the 
crime—are typified by sections 12022.5 and 12022.7:  was a firearm used or was 
great bodily injury inflicted?  Enhancements of the second kind enhance the 
several counts; those of the first kind, by contrast, have nothing to do with 
particular counts but, since they are related to the offender, are added only once as 
a step in arriving at the aggregate sentence.”  (Id. at p. 90; accord, People v. 
Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1163-1164.) 
Thus, this court in Tassell relied on the language of section 1170.1, and not 
on the language or legislative history of section 667(a), in concluding that at 
sentencing a trial court must impose a sentence enhancement for a prior felony 
conviction—including a section 667(a) enhancement—only once, regardless of the 
number of new felony offenses. 
Section 1170.1, however, applies only to determinate sentences.  It does not 
apply to multiple indeterminate sentences imposed under the Three Strikes law.  
“If a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision 
(d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall 
be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment . . . .”  (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A), 
italics added; see also § 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A).)  As this court has stated, “[t]he 
consecutive sentencing scheme of section 1170.1 does not apply to indeterminate 
life terms, and therefore it has no application to sentencing calculations for three 
strikes defendants.”  (People v. Nguyen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 197, 205; see also 
§ 669; People v. Felix (2000) 22 Cal.4th 651, 654-659; People v. Lyons (1999) 72 
Cal.App.4th 1224, 1227-1229.)  Because Tassell relied on section 1170.1, which 
does not apply to third strike sentences, it is not controlling or even helpful here in 
this significantly different context.  (Accord, People v. Byrd (2001) 89 
Cal.App.4th 1373, 1380.) 
 
6 
In third strike cases, the Three Strikes law uses enhancements in two 
distinct ways:  to calculate the minimum term of the indeterminate life sentence 
and to add an additional, determinate term to be served before the indeterminate 
life sentence.  “The two distinct functions of enhancements are found in the two 
required stages in the calculation of a ‘third strike’ sentence:  the determination of 
‘the greatest minimum term’ and the final sentence calculation which is to include 
all applicable enhancements.”  (Couzens and Bigelow (2001) Cal. Three Strikes 
Sentencing p. 8.6 (rev. 11/02).) 
For a third strike defendant, the minimum term of the indeterminate life 
sentence is the greatest of three time periods.  The first period (option one) is 
“[t]hree times the term otherwise provided as punishment” for the felony offense, 
not including enhancements.  (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(i), 1170.12, subd. 
(c)(2)(A)(i).)  The second period (option two) is 25 years.  (§§ 667, subd. 
(e)(2)(A)(ii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)(ii).)  The third period (option three) is 
“[t]he term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying 
conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 
(commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by 
Section 190 or 3046.”  (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)(iii).)  
A five-year enhancement under section 667(a) for a prior serious felony 
conviction lengthens the option three period, which is generally the longest of the 
three periods “when the defendant has an extensive criminal recidivist history.”  
(People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 553.) 
In addition to its use in calculating the minimum term of the indeterminate 
life sentence under option three, a prior serious felony conviction requires a five-
year enhancement term.  (§ 667(a) [“any person convicted of a serious felony who 
previously has been convicted of a serious felony . . . shall receive . . . a five-year 
enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried 
 
7 
separately”].)  Under the Three Strikes law, this determinate term must be 
consecutive to the minimum term of the indeterminate life sentence, and it is 
imposed whether or not the minimum term was established under option three.  
(People v. Dotson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 559 [“Once the minimum indeterminate 
term is calculated, ‘other enhancements or punishment provisions,’ such as section 
667(a) enhancements, are added as a separate determinate term to the 
indeterminate term under options (i), (ii), and (iii)”]; accord, People v. Acosta 
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 130-131; People v. Thomas (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 396, 
403-405.)  Thus, the Three Strikes law provides that the indeterminate life 
sentence “shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which 
a consecutive term may be imposed by law” (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(B), 1170.12, 
subd. (c)(2)(B)) and shall be “in addition to any other enhancement or punishment 
provisions which may apply” (§§ 667, subd. (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)). 
The five-year enhancement under section 667(a) for a prior serious felony 
conviction was added as part of “a statutory and constitutional scheme enacted by 
the voters in 1982 as part of Proposition 8.”  (People v. Jones (1993) 5 Cal.4th 
1142, 1146.)  The voters’ intent “was to increase sentences for recidivist 
offenders.”  (Id. at p. 1147.)  Adding the five-year enhancement separately to the 
third strike sentence for each new serious felony conviction is not inconsistent 
with this intent. 
Adding the five-year enhancement to the sentence for each new serious 
felony conviction is also consistent with the logic of the Three Strikes law.  Under 
that law, the status or nature of the offender as a person previously convicted of 
serious felony offenses does not result merely in a single additional term of 
imprisonment for each prior conviction added on to the overall sentence that 
would otherwise be imposed for all of the new offenses.  Instead, the Three Strikes 
law uses a defendant’s status as a recidivist to separately increase the punishment 
 
8 
for each new felony conviction.4  For a defendant with a single qualifying prior 
conviction, the sentence for each new offense is double what it otherwise would 
be.  (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1) [“the determinate term or minimum term for an 
indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for 
the current felony conviction”], 1170.12, subd. (c)(1) [same]; see People v. 
Nguyen, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 202-207.)  For a defendant with two or more 
qualifying prior convictions, the sentence for each new offense is life 
imprisonment with a minimum term of at least 25 years.  (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2), 
1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) 
The Three Strikes law, unlike section 1170.1, does not draw any distinction 
between status enhancements, based on the defendant’s record, and enhancements 
based on the circumstances of the current offenses, and the Three Strikes law 
generally discloses an intent to use the fact of recidivism to separately increase the 
sentence imposed for each new offense.  Accordingly, we conclude that, under the 
Three Strikes law, section 667(a) enhancements are to be applied individually to 
each count of a third strike sentence. 
We recognize that in several published opinions, Courts of Appeal have 
referred to consecutive third strike sentences on multiple counts in which a section 
667(a) enhancement was imposed only once.  (See, e.g., People v. Byrd, supra, 89 
                                             
 
4  
The Three Strikes law is hardly unique in viewing recidivism as an 
aggravating factor that warrants harsher punishment for each new offense.  Other 
provisions of the Penal Code also use a defendant’s prior record to increase the 
sentence for each new offense.  For example, petty theft is generally punished as a 
misdemeanor (§ 490), but a defendant with a prior conviction for theft or a theft-
related offense may receive felony punishment for each subsequent petty theft.  
(§ 666; see also § 666.5, subd. (a) [increased penalties for each subsequent 
conviction of certain crimes involving the theft or taking of a vehicle]; Veh. Code, 
§ 23536 et seq. [increased penalties for each subsequent conviction for driving 
under the influence].) 
 
9 
Cal.App.4th at p. 1378; People v. Thomas, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 399; 
People v. Ayon (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 385, 395-396, 401, disapproved on another 
point in People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 600, fn. 10; People v. Miles 
(1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 364, 366, 371; People v. Ingram (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 
1397, 1412, disapproved on another point in People v. Dotson, supra, 16 Cal.4th 
at p. 560, fn. 8; People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1131, 1140.)  
In none of these opinions, however, was the point addressed, and cases are not 
authority for propositions not considered.  (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 
236, 243.) 
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KENNARD, J. 
WE CONCUR: 
 
GEORGE, C. J. 
BAXTER, J. 
WERDEGAR, J. 
CHIN, J. 
BROWN, J. 
MORENO, J. 
 
 
10 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion   People v. Williams 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion  XXX  NP opn. filed 8/22/02 - 4th Dist., Div. 1 
Original Appeal  
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX  
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No.  S110377 
Date Filed:  October 18, 2004 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: San Diego 
Judge: Allan J. Preckel 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
Beatrice C. Tillman, under appointment by the Supreme Court;  Lynne G. McGinnis, under appointment by 
the Court of Appeal,  for Defendant and Appellant.  
 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, 
Assistant Attorney General, Steven T. Oetting, Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Laura D. Stilwell and Lise 
Jacobson,  Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
 
Beatrice C. Tillman 
Appellate Defenders, Inc. 
555 West Beech Street, Suite 300 
San Diego, CA 92101 
(619) 696-0282 
 
 
 
 
Lise Jacobson 
Deputy Attorney General 
110 West “A” Street, Suite 1100 
San Diego, CA  92101 
(619) 645-3079