Court Opinion

ID: 9724854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:17:40.985746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:07.348602
License: Public Domain

WEINER, Acting P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I cannot quarrel with the logic used by the majority in resolving the major question in the sentencing puzzle created by the facts of this case. Unfortunately, logic and reason are only of limited value in this area. When the text of the relevant provisions of the statutes and rules are examined I believe there is another reasonable interpretation more favorable to the defendant, and since that interpretation must be adopted (In re Tartar (1959) 52 Cal.2d 250, 256-257 [339 P.2d 553]), I conclude the use of a firearm, under section 12022.5, may not be used to aggravate the base term imposed for the assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (b)).
Defendant draws the following scenario from the determinate sentencing law (DSL) and the Sentencing Rules For The Superior Court.
After he was convicted of section 245, subdivision (b), with section 12022.5 and section 12022.7 enhancements, section 1170.1, subdivision (d) governed his sentencing. That provision requires the imposition of the greatest enhancement unless stricken for circumstances in mitigation under section 1170.1, subdivision (g). Consequently, the court had *487to impose an additional three years for the infliction of great bodily injury. Once having used the section 12022.7 enhancement the mandate of section 1170.1, subdivision (d) precluded the use of any lesser enhancement which, however, must still be imposed, but stayed until the complete service of the sentence not stayed. (Rule 447; People v. Niles (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 749, 756 [39 Cal.Rptr. 11].) Accordingly, since the section 12022.5 enhancement was imposed the fact of that enhancement could not be used to aggravate for to do so violates section 1170, subdivision (b) which prohibits the imposition of an upper term under such circumstances. “The court may not impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under Section.. .12022.5. . .or 12022.7.” (§ 1170, subd. (b).)
In prohibiting the use of multiple enhancements for a single offense under section 1170.1, subdivision (d) it appears the Legislature has incorporated into DSL the concept of necessarily and lesser included enhancements where use of the firearm causes great bodily injury.
The statutory scheme reflects increasingly severe punishment depending on how the firearm is used. Where a defendant is found to be armed with a firearm his sentence is increased by one year; where he personally uses the firearm in a felony his sentence is increased by two years; and where he uses the firearm to cause great bodily injury his sentence is increased by three years. In mandating application of the greatest enhancement (§ 1170.1, subd. (d)) without any reference to the use of the lesser enhancement for aggravation, the Legislature, consistent with the rationale underlying section 654, reflected its intent that a defendant should not be punished separately for use of a weapon where that weapon is also the cause of the great bodily injury. In light of the specificity of the various provisions of DSL, and those circumstances where two enhancements may be used, it appears reasonable the Legislature, had it intended to do so, would have made express provision for this contingency.
For example, in section 1170.1, subdivision (d) the Legislature made specific provision for those crimes which would permit use of two enhancements. If, as in the case here, a section 12022.5 enhancement may be used to aggravate, the express authorization in section 1170.1, subdivision (d) for dual use of enhancements becomes superfluous. I do not believe the Legislature intended the enactment of section 1170.1, subdivision (d) with its reference to specific felonies to be irrelevant. (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 760-761 [159 Cal.Rptr. 696, *488602 P.2d 396]; People v. Davis (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 270, 278 [163 Cal.Rptr. 22].) But, now by what appears to be the majority’s preference, the limitation in section 1170.1, subdivision (d) on the use of dual enhancements has been erased. Thus, another anomalous, and perhaps confusing twist to the new math of sentencing has been given to the sentencing judge.
This court’s opinion tells the sentencing court to remember it may not increase, enhance, a prison term for one year because of possession of a gun (§ 12022) where the gun is used to cause great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) and the section 12022 allegation is pleaded and proved, for enhancements may not be stacked to increase punishment. However, where the sentencing court labels the fact of possession of the firearm differently and calls it a “circumstance in aggravation,” it may then be used to increase, but not enhance, the punishment. The sentencing court must also remember it should remain silent when it wishes to strike the lesser enhancement when used to aggravate for then the appellate court can say the lesser enhancement was “effectively” stricken for if the sentencing court expressly strikes the lesser enhancement it must determine there are circumstances in mitigation (§ 1170.1, subd. (g)).
The semantics of sentencing are hard enough without adding this additional burden.
Although the question here of legislative interpretation may once again be “close and subtle” (People v. Harvey, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 761) the requirement that a defendant receive the benefit of every reasonable doubt, including the meaning of a statute, causes me to respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority on this issue. I concur, however, in the balance of the opinion.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 8, 1980, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 22, 1981. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.