People v. Lepe

California Court of Appeal Nov 3, 1987 No. D004159Published

Before: Butler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court has the discretion to impose concurrent sentences to achieve a longer term of incarceration for a repeat offender, and such a decision does not constitute an abuse of discretion even if consecutive sentencing criteria are met.

Issues

Whether a sentencing court is mandated to impose consecutive sentences when criteria under the California Rules of Court are satisfied.
Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by imposing concurrent sentences to achieve a longer period of incarceration.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is well established a trial court has discretion to determine whether multiple sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively.”

“Neither case law nor statutory authority restricts or precludes a sentencing judge from exercising discretion to impose a concurrent rather than a consecutive sentence for the purpose of lengthening a defendant’s term of incarceration.”

[1349]

Opinion

BUTLER, J.

Carlos R. Lepe appeals his four-year prison term concurrent with an earlier term of imprisonment. We shall relate the sentencing sequences, discuss his contentions, and affirm.

On April 16, 1985, Lepe pleaded guilty in Imperial County Superior Court case number 12176 to two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,

§ 245(a)(1)). While out on bail awaiting sentencing, he was arrested and jailed April 24, 1985, on the instant case for purse-snatching. On May 20, 1985, the court sentenced him to two concurrent upper four-year terms in case number 12176 and, pursuant to stipulation of counsel, credited him with 561 days for time served, including good behavior credits.

In September 1985, Lepe pleaded guilty in this case to grand theft person (§ 487, subd. 2) and admitted he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5(b)). On October 25, 1985, the court sentenced him to a total four-year term, consisting of the upper three-year term for the theft and a one-year enhancement for the earlier prison term. The court ordered this sentence to run concurrent with the prison term Lepe was then serving in case number 12176. Lepe was also credited with 277 days for time served in this case.

In an interesting twist of logic, Lepe appeals,

contending the sentencing court abused its discretion in ordering this case concurrent with his sentence in case number 12176. He asserts statutory sentencing and California Rules of Court

criteria mandate consecutive terms. He also argues the court in imposing concurrent terms denied him certain limitations on enhancements for terms imposed consecutively, denied him appropriate presentence credits for time served, denied him uniformity of

[1350]

People v. Lepe

AI Brief

BUTLER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief