Court Opinion

ID: 9751736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:56:44.203107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:09.489970
License: Public Domain

GRIGNON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Defendant and appellant Larry Jenkins appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of the burglary of the Coleman residence (Pen. Code, § 459), attempting to murder Arlisa Coleman1 with a knife (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1)), making terrorist threats to Arlisa (Pen. Code, § 422) and assaulting by means likely to produce great bodily injury Arlisa’s teenage daughter, Jamila Coleman (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), and a court trial in which three prior serious felony conviction allegations were found to be true (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12,2 667, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life for the attempted murder of Arlisa and a consecutive 25 years to life for the assault on Jamila. The trial court also sentenced defendant to 15 years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancements and one year for the weapon use enhancement. Defendant contends the trial court failed to exercise its discretion whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences for the attempted murder and the assault. Defendant argues the attempted murder of Arlisa and the assault on Jamila were committed on the same occasion or arose from the same set of operative facts. The majority concludes the trial court had no discretion to sentence concurrently in this case, because the two offenses were not committed on the same occasion and did not arise from the same set of operative facts. I dissent.
Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (a)(6) provides with respect to a three strikes defendant: “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 this section.” The analysis under Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (a)(6) is not coextensive with the analysis under Penal Code section 654. (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591-595 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 255, 957 P.2d 945].) Nor are the words “same occasion” necessarily closely related to the words “separate occasion” found in Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d). (18 Cal.4th at pp. 596-599.) Rather, the words “same occasion” have no “special or peculiar import different from their ordinary, generally understood meaning.” (Id. at p. 594.) *709“The phrase ‘committed on the same occasion’ is commonly understood to refer to at least a close temporal and spatial proximity between two events, although it may involve other factors as well.” (Ibid.) The phrase “same occasion” is the opposite of the phrase “different occasion.” (Ibid.)
Events have a close temporal and spatial proximity where they occur in one location, are brief in duration, are committed essentially simultaneously, are committed against the same group of victims, and occur in an uninterrupted fashion. (People v. Deloza, supra, .18 Cal.4th at pp. 595-596 [robbery of four persons in a furniture store]; see also People v. Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 510-511 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 941 P.2d 64] [robbery or attempted robbery of four persons seated at a table in a mall].) Events do not have a close temporal and spatial proximity where they occur at two separate locations one to three blocks distant, are committed at two separate times two to three minutes apart, and are committed against two entirely separate groups of victims. (People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 228 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228] [theft of brandy from store, assault on nearby residents during flight].)
The phrase “not arising from the same set of operative facts” means “not sharing common acts or criminal conduct that serve[] to establish the elements of the current felony offenses of which defendant stands convicted.” (People v. Lawrence, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 233.) The nature and elements of the offenses at issue, as continuous or complete, are highly relevant. (Id. at p. 232.) Additional factors which may be used in interpreting the phrase “same set of operative facts” include “the extent to which common acts and elements of such offenses unfold together or overlap, and the extent to which the elements of one offense have been satisfied, rendering that offense ‘completed’ in the eyes of the law before the commission of further criminal acts constituting additional and separately chargeable crimes.” (Id. at p. 233.) A shoplifting theft directed at one group of victims (the employees and patrons of a market) does not arise from the same set of operative facts as assaultive conduct committed one to three blocks distant and two to three minutes later, directed at an unrelated group of victims (nearby residents) during flight from the market. (Id. at p. 234.) Similarly, successive burglary and attempted burglaries of apartments in a housing complex do not arise out of the same set of operative facts. (People v. Durant (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1396-1400 [81 Cal.Rptr.2d 207].)
In this case, the attempted murder of Arlisa and the assault on Jamila were committed on the same occasion and arose out of the same set of operative facts. Defendant premeditated and deliberated killing Arlisa. He intended to kill her and told her so while he was still outside the Coleman residence. To *710that end, he armed himself with a knife and broke out the glass of a window in order to enter the residence occupied by Arlisa, Jamila; and eight-year-old Jobari Coleman. Defendant entered through the broken window. Arlisa fled up the stairs into her bedroom, closing the door. Defendant followed with the knife. He immediately attempted to force his way into the bedroom. Defendant tried to push his way into the bedroom and Arlisa tried to keep the door, which did not lock, closed. Defendant got his arm holding the knife into the room and was trying to stab at Arlisa. Arlisa was able to get the knife away from defendant. Jamila followed defendant up the stairs and tried to prevent defendant from harming her mother. Defendant told Jamila he did not wish to harm her, but he intended to kill her mother, and therefore Jamila needed to get out of his way. Jamila continued to obstruct defendant, and he pushed her down the stairs so he could continue his attack on Arlisa. Once Jamila was removed, defendant went downstairs to the kitchen to obtain another knife.3 Defendant resumed his attack, forced his way into the bedroom, and began stabbing Arlisa. Arlisa was able to escape and flee outside the bedroom, where defendant reengaged her. A police officer arrived.
The attempted murder of Arlisa commenced at the latest when defendant, armed with a knife, forced his way into the residence and continued until a police officer arrived and forced defendant at gunpoint to desist. The assault on Jamila occurred during the course of the attempted murder of Arlisa and was committed to permit defendant to continue the attack on Arlisa. The offenses were committed in close spatial (top of the stairs) and temporal (essentially simultaneously) proximity against the same group of victims (the Coleman family). The acts overlapped and were uninterrupted. The assault on Jamila was committed while the acts constituting the attempted murder were unfolding.
I would remand to the trial court to allow it to exercise its discretion whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences for the attempted murder of Arlisa and the assault on Jamila. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.
A petition for a rehearing was denied Feburary 15, 2001, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 25, 2001.

 Because the two victims share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for ease of reference and not out of any disrespect.

 Penal Code section 1170.12 is the legislative version of the statute enacted by initiative in Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i).

 The actual sequence of events is not entirely clear as to whether Jamila was assaulted by defendant before or after Arlisa managed to take the original knife from defendant.