Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sentence Choices

Text: (23) The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for the robbery offenses of which defendant Ross was convicted. Ross contends that the trial court erroneously failed to state reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences on these crimes. The decision to impose consecutive sentences is, as defendant Ross points out, a sentence choice for which, under the determinate sentencing law, the trial court must give reasons. (§ 1170, subd. (c); People v. Gutierrez (1991) 227 Cal. App.3d 1634, 1638 [278 Cal. Rptr. 748].) Thus, here the trial court erred in not giving reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We need not, however, remand the case for resentencing. As the trial court pointed out when it selected the upper term of imprisonment for the principal term, Ross's probation report noted 10 circumstances in aggravation applicable to defendant Ross, [23] and no circumstances in mitigation. It is inconceivable that the trial court would impose a different sentence if we were to remand for resentencing. Accordingly, we find the trial court's failure to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences to be harmless. ( People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216, 233 [207 Cal. Rptr. 549, 689 P.2d 121]; People v. Gutierrez, supra, 227 Cal. App.3d at p. 1638.) (24) Defendant Ross argues that consecutive sentences for most of the robbery charges were barred by section 654, because they were part of only two continuous courses of conduct: that occurring at the Hassan residence, and that occurring at the Taylor home. [24] Not so. When a defendant engages in violent conduct that injures several persons, he may be separately punished for injuring each of those persons, notwithstanding section 654. ( Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 20-21 [9 Cal. Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839].) Robbery is violent conduct warranting separate punishment for the injury inflicted on each robbery victim. As we explained in People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 886 [135 Cal. Rptr. 654, 558 P.2d 552]: The robbery of a victim at gunpoint has been held to be an act of violence such as to preclude application of section 654 in the case of multiple convictions involving multiple victims. The trial court also stated that in the event defendant Ross's death sentence was commuted or reduced by the Governor or this court, it was the trial court's view that Ross's sentence on his three murder charges should run consecutive to one another. Ross argues that the trial court failed to give adequate reasons for this sentence choice. But the trial court's views on the sentence that should be imposed if Ross's death sentence is commuted or reduced at some future date are not part of Ross's sentence; they are nothing more than the court's personal opinion. They are not legally binding, and the trial court was under no obligation to explain the reasons for its views.