Opinion ID: 1320524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: (1) Aggravation of Sentence in Reliance on Dismissed Count

Text: a) Choice of the upper term for count one. The record indicates that, in sentencing, the trial court selected the upper, four-year term for the robbery under count one because of certain aggravation aspects surrounding defendant's offenses, including the robbery charged in the dismissed count three. The sentencing court expressly relied upon a probation report which contained an extensive discussion of the circumstances of the foregoing robbery. In passing sentence, the court stated that Now the Probation Department ... brought out the aggravation aspect ... under [sentencing rule] 421(a)1 wherein they indicate that he pointed a gun, a loaded revolver, at victims in all three robberies. The victims claim that he said quote, `Don't get your gun or [press] any alarms or I'll blow you away,' unquote.... Under [rule] 421(a)10, over $600 in cash was stolen.... (Italics added.) As defendant correctly notes, the threatening statement quoted by the sentencing court was made to the victim of the third, dismissed robbery. Also, the bulk of the $600 referred to was taken in the third robbery. Rule 421, California Rules of Court, describes the Circumstances in Aggravation which a sentencing judge may consider in imposing punishment. Rule 421 (a) includes Facts relating to the crime. The People, quite fairly, concede that evidence regarding a dismissed offense, such as the robbery charged in count three, could not properly be considered as such facts relating to the crime because the rule plainly applies only to those aggravating circumstances which underlie the offense or offenses for which sentence is imposed, and not to any uncharged or dismissed offenses. The People do assert, however, that evidence regarding such offenses could be relevant and admissible to show pertinent facts relating to the defendant under rule 421(b), which include defendant's pattern of violent conduct (rule 421 (b) (1); cf. People v. Cheatham (1979) 23 Cal.3d 829, 834-835 [153 Cal. Rptr. 585, 591 P.2d 1237]). In our view, under the circumstances of this case, it would be improper and unfair to permit the sentencing court to consider any of the facts underlying the dismissed count three for purposes of aggravating or enhancing defendant's sentence. Count three was dismissed in consideration of defendant's agreement to plead guilty to counts one and two. Implicit in such a plea bargain, we think, is the understanding (in the absence of any contrary agreement) that defendant will suffer no adverse sentencing consequences by reason of the facts underlying, and solely pertaining to, the dismissed count. The People have cited no contrary authorities. Although People v. Guevara (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 86, 92-94 [151 Cal. Rptr. 511], upheld the authority of the sentencing court to take into account certain facts underlying charges dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain, those facts were also transactionally related to the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. As the Guevara court carefully explained, The plea bargain does not, expressly or by implication, preclude the sentencing court from reviewing all the circumstances relating to Guevara's admitted offenses to the legislatively mandated end that a term, lower, middle or upper, be imposed on Guevara commensurate with the gravity of his crime. (P. 94, italics in original.) In contrast, as we have noted, the present case involved a robbery alleged in dismissed count three which was unrelated to, and wholly separate from, the admitted robberies charged in counts one and two. We conclude that the cause should be remanded for resentencing on count one. b) (2) Choice of consecutive sentence for count two. The record fails to indicate, however, that in choosing to impose a consecutive sentence the court improperly relied upon any evidence underlying dismissed count three. Under rule 425(a) of the Rules of Court, the sentencing court in determining whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences may consider Facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: [¶] (1) The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other. [¶] (2) The crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence. [¶] (3) The crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior. [¶] (4) Any of the crimes involved multiple victims. [¶] (5) The convictions for which sentences are to be imposed are numerous. The record demonstrates that in selecting consecutive sentences the court correctly applied the sentencing factors described in subdivision (a), focusing only upon those two robberies of which defendant has been convicted. We conclude that the court's references to the crimes committed by defendant were limited to the two robberies underlying counts one and two, and that imposition of the consecutive sentence in question was entirely proper.