Opinion ID: 1314401
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Culbreth Revisited

Text: Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a), provides in relevant part that any person who personally uses a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of a felony shall, upon conviction of such felony or attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished by a specified sentence enhancement. Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330, construed a substantially similar predecessor statute. [4] In Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330, the defendant shot and killed his common law wife, his mother-in-law and his brother-in-law with a .30-.30 rifle. He was convicted of two counts of second degree murder and one of voluntary manslaughter. The question was whether the sentence could be enhanced for both of the murders (voluntary manslaughter was not one of the specified felonies at the time), or whether only one enhancement was allowed for the entire episode. We held the latter. The legislative purpose of section 12022.5 has been described as deterrence, i.e., to deter the use of firearms on subsequent occasions. Thus it has been held that where there are consecutive robberies in several communities over a period of several hours, a defendant may not bootstrap himself into avoidance of additional penalties by claiming that the series of divisible acts, each of which had been committed with a separate identifiable intent and objective, composed an indivisible transaction. [Citations.] But if all the charged offenses are incident to one objective and effectively comprise an indivisible transaction, then section 12022.5 may be invoked only once and not in accordance with the number of victims. [Citation.] ( Id. at pp. 333-334.) After discussing three Court of Appeal decisions, we continued our analysis. It is clear that the term `uses' was deliberately employed by the Legislature when it adopted section 12022.5. To `use' means, among other things, `to carry out a purpose or action by means of, to make instrumental to an end or process, and to apply to advantage.' [Citation.] The `end or process' here was the commission of a single frenetic act of violence which, unfortunately, resulted in multiple victims. Under the People's theory, no consideration of the facts is necessary; a body count of victims is sufficient to establish the number of separate transactions. This simplistic formula is untenable; an analysis of the events is essential to ascertain the apparent intent and objective of the defendant. Such an analysis here clearly indicates the homicides  the two second degree murders and the manslaughter  occurred in a matter of seconds, all part of a single melee. There was but one occasion, one intent, one objective, one indivisible transaction. Therefore section 12022.5 may be applied only once. ( Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 334-335.) Justice Clark, joined by Justices McComb and Richardson, dissented. He argued that Penal Code section 654, which generally prohibits multiple punishment when a single act or transaction is charged as multiple offenses, does not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims. ( Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 335 (dis. opn. of Clark, J.).) Thus, that section does not apply to the underlying murders, nor to Penal Code section 12022.5, which does not apply to the offense but merely provides additional punishment for certain offenses in which a firearm is used. (17 Cal.3d at p. 335.) Justice Clark argued that the language of Penal Code section 12022.5 does not support the majority's analysis. Section 12022.5 speaks of `use' of a firearm, not `occasions' of firearm use. Neither `occasion' nor any synonym associated with transactional analysis appears in the statute. [The dissent here quotes the same definition of use quoted by the majority.] Under section 12022.5, the `purpose or action,' `end or process' for which a firearm is used is the commission of one or more of the crimes specified therein. Accordingly, for the purposes of the section, petitioner used his firearm twice, committing two murders. By its terms the statute applies to `[a]ny person who uses a firearm in the commission of ... murder....' Nothing in the statute indicates that it is applicable to one of petitioner's murders but not the other one. Nor is the ... analysis supported by the fact that section 12022.5 is intended to deter use of a firearm in the commission of the offenses specified therein. The statutes directly sanctioning those crimes are also intended to have a deterrent effect. Nevertheless, a defendant committing two murders, e.g., on a `single occasion' may be convicted and punished for both of them. [Citation.] So also may the punishment for each of the murders be enhanced under section 12022.5. ( Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 336 (dis. opn. of Clark, J.), italics in original.) Subsequent Court of Appeal opinions have not been kind to the Culbreth rule. In People v. Raby (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 577 [224 Cal. Rptr. 576], the court, while yielding to the mandate of Culbreth, criticized it in a comprehensive analysis. There, the defendant was convicted of nine robberies against different victims committed in two stores on two dates. The court held that each series of robberies on different dates was a separate occasion permitting separate use enhancements, but that there could be only one enhancement per date despite the multiple victims. While so ruling, however, it admit[ted] considerable unease with the current state of the law. After intensive study, we are not sure a coherent rule on the subject can be constructed on the foundation of Culbreth and its progeny. A test based in part on intent and objective is seriously flawed for several reasons: it favors those who harbor the graver criminal intent over those whose crimes are, in part, largely reactions to circumstances; worse, the test is so subjective that it approaches arbitrariness in its application. ( Id. at p. 583.) The Raby court discussed the foundation of the rule, then continued its analysis: Today the Culbreth rule remains at least as ambiguous as its heritage. Although a court may make as many findings of firearm use as there are victims, only one sentence enhancement may be imposed for each `occasion' of gun use. But what is an `occasion'? That question has threatened judicial sanity and spawned distinct lines of authority. ( People v. Raby, supra, 179 Cal. App.3d at p. 585.) The court reviewed various Court of Appeal cases that found only one occasion of gun use. It then asked and sought to answer this question: What then are the circumstances justifying the finding of multiple occasions of gun use? Frankly, we find little to distinguish the facts of the cases in this line of authority from those where but a single occasion of gun use was found. ( Id. at p. 587.) After reviewing cases which found multiple occasions of gun use, the court summarized as follows. Our efforts to identify and analyze the distinctions between these two lines of authority have proved exceedingly frustrating. In a broad sense, one might concede that the cases where multiple sentence enhancements have been imposed possess elements not present in Raby's crime spree. What could be characterized as the original criminal plan in several of them was somehow altered in response to unanticipated events.... In others, `the defendant [had] an opportunity to pause and reflect on the enhanced penal consequences of using his gun to achieve a newly-arising objective....' [Citations.] But do these thin distinctions justify the disparate sentencing treatment? And can a cogent rule be gleaned from the cases? The following example demonstrates the difficulty, if not futility, of the exercise: An armed defendant convicted of robbing seven solitary attendants at seven gas stations on the same street in the same evening may receive seven consecutive sentences and seven consecutive gun use enhancements. So might the armed crook who snares six successive drop-in customers while he is attempting to breach the safe at a gas station manned by a single employee. But the armed outlaw who robs a group of seven individuals at one gas station may receive seven consecutive robbery sentences and only one firearm use enhancement. On what basis is a more lenient sentence for the third felon justifiable? Are the `extra' six victims any less terrorized because they were, from the outset, part of a group? Are one felon's criminal actions less blameworthy than those of the others? There appears to be no easy or universal understanding of the Culbreth rule by those who must apply it, least of all us, perhaps. Clearly, neither multiple victims nor multiple motivations, without more, justify the finding of multiple occasions of gun use. Renouncing the chance to abandon a criminal scheme before encountering additional victims ... or seizing an opportunity to commit additional offenses on unexpected victims ..., however, does appear to influence the determination as to the number of occasions of gun use. But this is just another way of saying that the more grandiose the perpetrator's original plan, in terms of the number of victims, the less severe will be the punishment  a grotesque rule of law by any standard. ( People v. Raby, supra, 179 Cal. App.3d at pp. 589-590.) The Raby court analyzed the facts before it, and concluded, Raby obviously intended to rob everyone present each time; there were no unexpected victims; and there was no significant hiatus between the offenses committed in each store. Thus, the Culbreth rule, as we understand it, rewards him for the scope of his original criminal intent and permits the imposition of only two consecutive sentences for firearm use enhancements  one for each store. We believe the rule is ripe for reassessment but, of course, yield to its mandate. ( People v. Raby, supra, 179 Cal. App.3d at p. 591.) In People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 181, 194, footnote 11 [251 Cal. Rptr. 40], the same court reiterated its frustration with Culbreth. It has generated considerable confusion among appellate courts as to the number of findings of firearm use that are permissible for a single criminal episode. [Citations.] Also, in our view it operates to punish those with a lesser criminal intent more severely than those who harbor more sinister objectives. The court in People v. Thomas (1990) 218 Cal. App.3d 1477 [267 Cal. Rptr. 865] applied Culbreth and limited the use enhancements to one for each set of crimes committed on a separate date. But it also questioned the rule. Although the `single-occasion' rule articulated in Culbreth has been criticized because it can result in punishing those with a lesser criminal intent more severely than those who harbor more sinister objectives (see People v. Raby (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 577, 590 [224 Cal. Rptr. 576]; see also People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 181, 194, fn. 11 [251 Cal. Rptr. 40]), our Supreme Court has not yet undertaken to reconsider the underpinnings of its decision. To our mind the dissent in Culbreth contains the sounder and more logical reasoning. As an intermediate appellate court, however, we are compelled in this case to apply the rule of the majority opinion. [Citation.] We do respectfully urge the high court to reexamine Culbreth in light of the thoughtful criticisms voiced over the past decade. (218 Cal. App.3d at p. 1491.) As noted, the Court of Appeal in this case reluctantly struck the consecutive use enhancement under compulsion of Culbreth. But it added its voice to those urging reexamination of the rule. We find no reason in logic why two separate acts of violence separately and properly punished with consecutive sentences cannot be enhanced with a use of a firearm as to each count. The cases are legion which have criticized Culbreth, and we count ourselves in that company. Many cases are tribute to the intellectual creativity of our brethren in circumventing its holding. (4a) With this background, the Attorney General asks us to overrule Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330. Defendant argues that the decision was correct when decided, and that subsequently the Legislature has effectively approved the rule. We discuss defendant's latter contention first. When we examined the question of defendant's eligibility for CYA, we found that the Legislature effectively ratified the decision of Jeanice D., supra, 28 Cal.3d 210, as applied to 16- and 17-year-olds. (5) However, legislative inaction alone does not necessarily imply legislative approval. The Legislature's failure to act may indicate many things other than approval of a judicial construction of a statute: the sheer pressure of other and more important business, political considerations, or a tendency to trust to the courts to correct their own errors.... ( County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 391, 404 [179 Cal. Rptr. 214, 637 P.2d 681], internal quotation marks omitted; see also People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750-751 [12 Cal. Rptr.2d 586, 837 P.2d 1100].) (4b) Defendant argues that past actions of the Legislature affirmatively show an intent to ratify Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330. First, in 1979, the Legislature added subdivision (h) (now (i)) to Penal Code section 1170.1, which provides, For any violation of specified sex offenses, the number of enhancements which may be imposed shall not be limited, regardless of whether such enhancements are pursuant to this or some other section of law. In People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 913-914, and footnote 9 [184 Cal. Rptr. 165, 647 P.2d 569], we recognized that the 1979 amendment to Penal Code section 1170.1 created a possible exception to the Culbreth rule. (Citing People v. Edwards (1981) 117 Cal. App.3d 436, 447 [172 Cal. Rptr. 652].) We rejected the argument that the amendment abrogated Culbreth for other purposes. `[T]o say that Culbreth no longer applies because of its apparent exclusion under Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (h), would ignore the maxim of statutory construction that when a statute expresses certain exceptions to a general rule, other exceptions are necessarily excluded.' ( People v. Cardenas, supra, at p. 914, quoting People v. Edwards, supra, at p. 448.) The question here is not whether the amendment abolished Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330, but whether it impliedly codified it. We believe it did not. Legislation adopting Culbreth, either expressly or impliedly, would logically be placed in Penal Code section 12022.5, the specific section at issue, not in Penal Code section 1170.1, which is a general statute implementing the Determinate Sentencing Act. Section 1170.1, subdivision (i), affects enhancements in general as applied to sex offenses. It contains no reference to the Culbreth rule or even section 12022.5. Even if that subdivision (or Penal Code section 12022.3, which the parties do not cite but which creates firearm enhancements applying specifically to sex offenses) contains an implied exception to the Culbreth rule (see People v. Ramirez (1987) 189 Cal. App.3d 603, 628-629 [233 Cal. Rptr. 645]), we see no evidence of an intent to endorse the rule in other cases. Any connection between what is now section 1170.1, subdivision (i), and the Culbreth rule is too oblique to signal an intent to codify the rule. Second, in 1988, the Legislature added subdivision (f) to Penal Code section 12022.5, which provides, For purposes of imposing an enhancement under Section 1170.1, the enhancements under this section shall count as one, single enhancement. (Stats. 1988, ch. 1249, § 3, p. 4162.) Similarly, we do not believe that action endorsed Culbreth. It is not readily apparent exactly what was meant by subdivision (f) of section 12022.5. The Attorney General argues that it was the result of poor drafting, in that it was supposed to have been deleted from the bill when other portions to which it related were deleted. We need not resolve the point, nor need we decide what, if anything, subdivision (f) does do; it suffices to determine what it does not do  it does not codify Culbreth. If the Legislature had intended to adopt the Culbreth rule, surely it would have found a less obscure way to signal that intent. The contrast between the legislation which partly overruled Jeanice D., supra, 28 Cal.3d 210, and that at issue here, could hardly be greater. By necessary implication, the former codified what it did not overrule. The latter acts, whatever they may have done, did not ratify Culbreth either expressly or impliedly. As we have often noted, legislative silence might support an arguable inference of acquiescence or passive approval, but something more than mere silence is needed to elevate the acquiescence to a species of implied legislation. In construing statutes, it is generally more fruitful to examine what the Legislature has done than what it has not done. ( People v. Escobar, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 751.) [L]egislative inaction is a weak reed upon which to lean.... ( Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1156 [278 Cal. Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873], internal quotation marks omitted.) The Legislature may have had many reasons for dealing with problems such as sentences for sex offenses but not addressing the Culbreth question, including the press of business and, not least, trusting to the courts to correct their own errors. ( County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 404.) Thus, although the Legislature has not affirmatively disapproved the court's analysis in [ Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330] neither has it expressly or impliedly endorsed it. ( People v. Escobar, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 751; see also id. at p. 751, fn. 5.) In short, this court created the Culbreth rule; this court can reexamine it. ( Ibid. ) Upon reexamination, we agree with the Courts of Appeal which have criticized the rule. As convincingly demonstrated in People v. Raby, supra, 179 Cal. App.3d 577, appellate courts (and undoubtedly trial courts) have found it very difficult, if not impossible, to consistently implement the rule. To the extent a consistent interpretation has emerged, it is illogical. Consider the situation of multiple victims. If all the victims were intended from the outset of the criminal scheme, multiple enhancements are prohibited; but if fewer victims were originally intended, and the defendant merely reacted to circumstances, the punishment may be more severe  a grotesque rule of law by any standard. ( Id. at p. 590.) The Culbreth rule finds no support in the statutory language. Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a), states only that any person who personally uses a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of a felony shall receive the additional prescribed punishment. Nothing limits the enhancements to one for every separate occasion, whatever that might mean. It is ironic that both the majority and the dissent in Culbreth cite for their purposes the same definitions of the word use. ( Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 334 (maj. opn.), 336 (dis. opn.).) But the dissent has the better of the argument. By any definition, defendant use[d] a firearm when he shot and killed Enciso; he used it again when he shot Manlove. Similarly, Culbreth used a firearm each time he killed one of his victims. As noted in People v. Raby, supra, 179 Cal. App.3d at page 584, the victims in Culbreth were not killed with the same bullet. The statutory language does not limit the number of enhancements in that situation. We also find the majority's deterrence analysis flawed. ( Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 333-334.) We need not discuss whether the Legislature intended to punish as well as to deter (see Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1)), for we doubt that the Legislature intended either deterrence or punishment to cease with the first victim. We think it far more likely, and consistent with the actual statutory language, that the Legislature intended to deter (and undoubtedly to punish) firearm use against multiple victims more strongly than firearm use against a single victim. To the extent defendant contends that the Penal Code section 654 prohibition against multiple punishment mandates the Culbreth rule, we note, as did Justice Clark in dissent, that it was (and still is) settled that section 654 does not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims. ( Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 335 (dis. opn. of Clark, J.); see also People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 803 [254 Cal. Rptr. 331, 765 P.2d 493].) Here, there were multiple victims. Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330, was solely an interpretation of Penal Code section 12022.5; it was not based on Penal Code section 654. For this reason, we need not decide whether section 654 applies at all to enhancements. [5] Penal Code section 12022.5 simply enhances the term to be imposed for an offense; when multiple terms are imposed for multiple offenses, Penal Code section 654 exists to limit the number of terms which may be executed. However, as noted, when Culbreth was decided, and still today, the limitations of section 654 do not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims. The Culbreth decision does not justify a conclusion that the Legislature intended that a term enhancement be treated more restrictively for multiple punishment purposes than the term for the underlying offense. (6) Because of the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, we are reluctant to overturn prior opinions of this court. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296 [250 Cal. Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58].) Nevertheless, the doctrine is flexible, and permits this court to reconsider, and ultimately to depart from, our own prior precedent in an appropriate case. ( Ibid. ) Court-made error should not be shielded from correction. ( Ibid. ) One purpose behind the doctrine is to protect those who act in reliance upon existing law. Moreover, the demands of the doctrine are `at their acme ... where reliance interests are involved.' ( Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) 504 U.S. ___, ___ [119 L.Ed.2d 91, 112, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 1923] (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.), quoting Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. ___ [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 737, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2610].) Such reliance interests can be minimized or even negated by making the new rule prospective only, as in Moradi Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, supra, 46 Cal.3d at page 305. (4c) The Culbreth rule has proven to be almost impossible to implement in a nonarbitrary fashion. To the extent it has been interpreted consistently it has yielded illogical and grotesque results. It is contrary to the relevant statutory language, and is inconsistent with the very deterrence intent the Culbreth court found inherent in the statute. For these reasons, we hereby overrule Culbreth, supra, 17 Cal.3d 330. Subject to Penal Code sections 654 and 1170.1, and any other applicable limitations, a firearm-use enhancement under section 12022.5 may be imposed for each separate offense for which the enhancement is found true. (We need not and do not decide here the propriety of multiple enhancements when the same act results in multiple victims, such as when one bullet hits two or more persons. We leave that question to a later day.) [6]