People v. Baker

Opinion

ROUSE, J.

Defendant Thesolonia Baker appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no contest plea to a charge of forcible rape, in violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (2).

1

He was sentenced to state prison for the total term of eighteen years, consisting of the upper term of eight years for the current rape and a five-year enhancement for each of the prior rapes.

We confine our discussion of the facts to those which are necessarily involved in the resolution of issues raised on appeal.

I.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in basing two consecutive five-year sentence enhancements upon the fact that in a single 1980

[61]

criminal action, defendant was convicted of two counts of forcible rape. He asserts that section 667.6, subdivision (a), which provides that a person who is convicted of a violent sexual offense must receive a five-year sentence enhancement for each prior conviction of a violent sexual offense, should be interpreted to preclude the court from imposing more than one such five-year enhancement unless the defendant was previously convicted of two or more violent sexual offenses on charges which were

brought and tried separately.

He claims that where, as here, a defendant sustained two or more prior convictions of violent sexual offenses in a

single

criminal action, those prior convictions justify the imposition of only one five-year sentence enhancement.

Defendant relies upon two arguments in support of his proposed construction of section 667.6, subdivision (a): (1) since “the various enhancement statutes form a unified whole intended to be internally consistent,” section 667.6, subdivision (a), should be accorded the same interpretation as section 667, subdivision (a), which imposes a five-year sentence enhancement upon any person convicted of a serious felony who has previously been convicted of such a felony; and (2) defendant’s right to equal protection of the laws would be violated if section 667.6, subdivision (a), were accorded a different construction than section 667, subdivision (a). Neither of these arguments is persuasive.