People v. Beard

207 Cal. App. 4th 936, 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877, 2012 WL 2870549, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 804
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 13, 2012
DocketNo. C066320
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 207 Cal. App. 4th 936 (People v. Beard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Beard, 207 Cal. App. 4th 936, 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877, 2012 WL 2870549, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 804 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Opinion

RAYE, P. J.

Over the course of many years, defendant Michael Beard sexually abused three different minor children, including his daughter. The jury convicted defendant of continual sexual abuse of a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)),1 lewd acts upon a minor (§ 288, subd. (c)), and misdemeanor annoying or molesting a minor (§ 647.6).

In two prior cases, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)) and one count of felony selling or transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352); he also admitted a prior narcotics conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)).

The court sentenced defendant in all three cases to a total term of 22 years in state prison.

Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in sentencing him to a full, consecutive three-year enhancement for the admitted prior narcotics conviction. He argues that the enhancement should have been limited to a one-year consecutive term pursuant to section 1170.1, subdivision (a). We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.

[939]*939BACKGROUND2

Case No. SF092540A

In case No. SF092540A (hereinafter case 540A), after selling cocaine to an undercover informant, defendant was charged with one count of sale or transportation of a controlled substance, a felony. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352.) The indictment further alleged that defendant had two prior convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) and Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(ll).

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to count one and admitted one prior conviction for purposes of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). The trial court struck the remaining allegations and imposed and then suspended a sentence of seven years in state prison. The suspended sentence was composed of the middle term of four years for count one and an additional three years for the prior narcotics conviction pursuant to section 11370.2, subdivision (a). Defendant was placed on five years’ formal probation on condition that he serve one year in county jail.

Case No. SF108650A

In case No. SF108650A (hereinafter case 650A), defendant’s daughter reported that over the course of several years her father had put his finger in or on her vagina and rubbed his penis against her vagina. Defendant was charged with six counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a minor. (§ 288, subd. (a).)

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of felony sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the above six counts. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years’ formal probation on condition that he serve 163 days in jail; defendant was given credit for 163 days served. The court reinstated defendant’s probation in case 540A.

Case No. SF1U992A

In case No. SF111992A (hereinafter case 992A), three different victims alleged acts of molestation by defendant. He was charged with lewd acts upon a minor (§ 288, subd. (c)) (count 1), misdemeanor annoying or molesting a child under 18 years of age (§ 647.6) (count 2), and continuous sexual [940]*940abuse of a minor (§ 288.5, subd. (a)) (count 3). On August 26, 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of all three counts.

Sentencing

On October 4, 2010, the court imposed judgment in all three cases, resulting in an aggregate prison term of 22 years. The trial court selected count 3 from case 992A, continual sexual abuse of a minor under 14 years of age, as the principal term, sentencing defendant to the upper term of 16 years in state prison. Additionally, defendant was sentenced to the following consecutive, subordinate terms; in case 992A, count 1, eight months (one-third the middle term) for committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child; in case 650A, count 1, one year (one-third the middle term) for felony sexual battery; and in case 540A, count one, 16 months (one-third the middle term) for sale of a controlled substance, plus a full, consecutive three-year enhancement for the prior narcotics conviction. Finally, defendant was sentenced to a concurrent one-year term for misdemeanor annoying or molesting a minor.

Defendant timely filed this appeal.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the imposition of the full, consecutive three-year enhancement was improper because Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a) mandates that the three-year term ordinarily imposed under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) be imposed at one-third its value, or one year, when attached to a term imposed as a subordinate term. Defendant’s interpretation of the statutes is incorrect.

Section 1170.1, subdivision (a) governs the calculation and imposition of a determinate sentence when, as here, the defendant has been convicted of more than one felony.3 (People v. Williams (2004) 34 Cal.4th 397, 402 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 619, 98 P.3d 876].)

[941]*941Under Penal Code section 1170.1, when a person is convicted of two or more felonies and consecutive sentences are imposed, the total sentence consists of “the principal term, the subordinate term, and any additional term imposed for applicable enhancements for prior convictions, prior prison terms, and Section 12022.1.” (Pen. Code, § 1170.1, subd. (a).)

The principal term consists of the greatest term of imprisonment imposed plus any applicable specific enhancements. The “subordinate term” for each consecutive felony conviction consists of one-third of the middle term of imprisonment prescribed for the subordinate offense plus one-third of the term imposed for any applicable specific enhancements. (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).)

Here, the court selected count 3, continual sexual abuse of a child, in case 992A as the principal term. Therefore, the term imposed in case 540A for the prior narcotics conviction was a subordinate term.

Defendant contends that the prior conviction enhancement was attached to a subordinate term and therefore is subject to the “one-third” limit and should have been imposed as a one-year term. He argues that because section 1170.1 explicitly exempts particular offenses from the one-third subordinate term limitation, the courts are prevented from implying the exclusion of offenses not listed.

For example, defendant argues, section 1170.1 explicitly provides that “ ‘[i]f a person is convicted of two or more violations of kidnapping . . . involving separate victims, the subordinate term for each consecutive offense of kidnapping shall consist of the full middle term and shall include the full term imposed for specific enhancements applicable to those subordinate offenses.’ (§ 1170.1, subd. (b).)”4 The argument ignores the language of the statute.

Section 1170.1, subdivision (a) applies the one-third limit to “specific enhancements applicable to those subordinate offenses.” “As used in Section 1170.1, the term ‘specific enhancement’ means an enhancement that relates to the circumstances of the crime.” (§ 1170.11.)5

[942]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Ford CA2/7
California Court of Appeal, 2025
People v. Pacheco CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2025
People v. McKenzie
California Court of Appeal, 2018
People v. McKenzie
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 533 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
People v. Chilton CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. Williams CA2/7
California Court of Appeal, 2014
The People v. Oakley
216 Cal. App. 4th 1241 (California Court of Appeal, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 Cal. App. 4th 936, 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877, 2012 WL 2870549, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beard-calctapp-2012.