Opinion ID: 1275481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: People v. Hendrix

Text: In Hendrix, supra, 16 Cal.4th 508, 66 Cal. ptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64, the defendant pointed a gun at four people seated at a shopping mall table and demanded their money. Two complied. The defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of robbery, and two counts of attempted robbery, and the allegations that the defendant personally used a firearm in committing each of these crimes were found true. ( Id. at pp. 510-611, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) Defendant subsequently admitted three prior serious felony convictions. ( Id. at p. 511, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) We held that consecutive sentences were not mandatory under the three strikes law. ( Id. at p. 515, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431,941 P.2d 64.) We first noted section 667, subdivision (c), provides that, `Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following,' including section 667, subdivision (c)(6) and (c)(7). ( Hendrix, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 512, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) Subdivision (c), (c)(6) and (c)(7) is virtually identical to section 1170.12, subdivision (a), (a)(6) and (a)(7) at issue in this case. Section 667, subdivision (c)(6), provides: If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision (e). We concluded that section 667, subdivision (c)(6), applies to any current felony conviction. ( Hendrix, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 512, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) Moreover, subdivision (c)(6) provides that consecutive sentencing is mandatory for any current felony convictions `not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts.' (16 Cal.4th at p. 512, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) By implication, consecutive sentences are not mandatory under subdivision (c)(6) if the multiple current felony convictions are `committed on the same occasion' or `aris[e] from the same set of operative facts.' ( Id. at pp. 512-513, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64.) Section 667, subdivision (c)(7), provides: If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law. We concluded that section 667, subdivision (c)(7), applies when there is more than one current serious or violent felony, and that the reference to paragraph (6) in subdivision (c)(7) is to subdivision (c)(6). ( Hendrix, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 513, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431,941 P.2d 64.) So construed, `more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6)' refers to multiple current convictions for serious or violent felonies `not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts.' ( Ibid.; see § 667, subd. (c)(6).) Thus, when a defendant is convicted of two or more current serious or violent felonies `not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts,' not only must the court impose the sentences for these serious or violent offenses consecutive to each other, it must also impose these sentences `consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.' By implication, consecutive sentences are not mandated under subdivision (c)(7) if all of the serious or violent current felony convictions are `committed on the same occasion' or `aris[e] from the same set of operative facts.' ( Ibid; see § 667, subd. (c)(7).) In Hendrix, the parties conceded that all of the current serious and violent felony convictions were `committed on the same occasion.' ( Hendrix, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 514, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64; id at p. 516, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64 (cone, opn. of George, C.J.); id. at p. 519, fn. 2, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64 (cone. opn. of Mosk, J,).) Therefore, subdivision (c)(7) did not mandate that the trial court impose consecutive sentences. Rather, we held the trial court retained discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences. ( Hendrix, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 514, 66 Cal. Rptr.2d 431,941 P.2d 64.)