Opinion ID: 1145188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Criteria

Text: (5) Defendant contends that the lack of a Judicial Council rule addressed specifically to criteria for choosing to sentence under section 667.6, subdivision (c) invalidates the sentence imposed in his case. He relies on section 1170.3, which directs the Judicial Council to promote uniformity in sentencing by adopting rules providing criteria for courts to use in deciding to: (1) Grant or deny probation. (2) Impose the lower or upper prison term. (3) Impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. (4) Consider an additional sentence for prior prison terms. (5) Impose an additional sentence for being armed with a deadly weapon, using a firearm, an excessive taking or damage, or the infliction of great bodily injury. Pursuant to section 1170.3 the Judicial Council adopted a number of rules, including rule 425 of the California Rules of Court regarding criteria for deciding between consecutive and concurrent sentences. [5] The decision to sentence a defendant under section 667.6, subdivision (c) rather than section 1170.1 is essentially a decision concerning consecutive sentencing, and the factors listed in rule 425 are relevant to it. [6] (See People v. Karsai (1982) 131 Cal. App.3d 224, 238 [182 Cal. Rptr. 406].) Nothing in section 1170.3 calls for an additional rule for consecutive sentencing under section 667.6, subdivision (c). When the Legislature added section 667.6 in 1979, it did not amend section 1170.3 to require separate criteria for sentencing under subdivision (c) of section 667.6. We therefore presume that the Legislature intended the existing criteria to cover sentencing under section 667.6, subdivision (c). (See Estate of McDill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 831, 837-839 [122 Cal. Rptr. 754, 537 P.2d 874].) Moreover, it would be extremely difficult to formulate separate and distinct criteria from those already set forth in rule 425. (See People v. Wilson (1982) 135 Cal. App.3d 343, 353-354 [185 Cal. Rptr. 498].)