People v. Thurs

California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 1986 No. Crim. 13889Published

Before: Blease

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that consecutive sentences for multiple robbery convictions are permissible under California Rules of Court, rule 425(a)(2) when the defendant commits separate acts of violence against different victims, even if the acts occur during a single course of conduct.

Issues

Whether consecutive sentences were correctly imposed for multiple robbery convictions involving different victims.
Whether the defendant's actions constituted 'separate acts of violence' under California Rules of Court, rule 425(a)(2).

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As a general rule, even though a defendant entertains but a single principal objective during an indivisible course of conduct, he may be convicted and punished for each crime of violence committed against a different victim.”

“When there are several victims, an act of violence is separate when it exposes one of the victims to a risk of injury that is not shared by the others.”

“A bayonet was separately held against each of the (noncollective) throats of Mr. and Mrs. Davis subjecting each to the risk of being slit.”

Opinion

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213.5) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) incident to a single course of conduct. The jury also found true allegations that defendant personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery offenses. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b).) The sole issue tendered is whether consecutive sentences were correctly imposed for the convictions. We will affirm the judgment.

Facts

On the evening of January 17, 1984, defendant and his accomplice, Frank Foster, surreptitiously entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Davis. Each was armed with a bayonet knife. They seized the Davis’ nine-month-old daughter, who lay asleep in her bedroom. Foster held his bayonet to the baby’s throat and both men confronted Mr. and Mrs. Davis. Foster threatened to

[451]

behead the baby if the Davises did not comply with their demands for money, jewelry and drugs. They ransacked the house, taking money and jewelry. During the course of this conduct a bayonet was held to Mrs. Davis’ throat and to Mr. Davis’ throat.

Defendant was convicted of robbing Mr. and Mrs. Davis (counts I and II) and of assaulting their daughter with a deadly weapon (count III). He was sentenced to the upper term of six years on count I together with a one-year enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). Subordinate term sentences were imposed on counts II and III. Defendant received a total unstayed term of nine years and four months. This appeal followed.

Discussion

The defendant challenges the consecutive sentences imposed for the robberies (counts I and II). The trial court gave as its reason for doing so that “[t]he offense in Count Two involved a victim, which victim was different than the victim in the Count I.

Defendant contends that this reference to different victims misapplies California Rules of Court, rule 425(a), particularly subdivision (a)(2).

People v. Thurs

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief