Opinion ID: 2519654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: People v. Acosta.

Text: A jury convicted defendant Greg Acosta of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)). [2] The trial court subsequently found he had sustained prior convictions under sections 264.1 (rape in concert) and 261, subdivision (a)(2) (forcible rape), and had served prior prison commitments for those prior convictions. Based on these findings, the court sentenced him to a prison term of 85 years to life. In setting this sentence, the court first imposed two consecutive five-year enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a), one for each of his prior convictions. It then added a consecutive life term with a minimum term of 75 years, which it calculated by taking the 25-year minimum period of parole ineligibility that, absent the Three Strikes law, would have applied under the One Strike law (§ 667.61, subd. (a)), and tripling it under option 1 of the Three Strikes law. The Court of Appeal affirmed Acosta's conviction. Regarding sentence, the Court of Appeal rejected Acosta's argument that the One Strike law trumps the Three Strikes law, and held instead that the two statutes operate jointly. However, it also held that the trial court erred in tripling the 25-year minimum term of the One Strike law and imposing two 5-year enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a). Under the court's reading of the governing statutory language, one of Acosta's two prior convictions was consume[d] in bring[ing] him within the One Strike law, leaving only the other prior conviction for use under the Three Strikes law and under section 667, subdivision (a). Thus, the court held, Acosta should have been sentenced to a term of 25 years to life under section 667.61, subdivision (a), based on one of his prior convictions and, based on the remaining prior conviction, that term should have been doubled to 50 years under the Three Strikes law and a single five-year enhancement should have been imposed under section 667, subdivision (a). The court modified the judgment accordingly and directed the trial court to prepare a new abstract of judgment reflecting the modification. Both Acosta and the People petitioned for review, and we granted both petitions.