People v. Liakos

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 1982 No. Docket No 13474Published

Before: Staniforth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while a defendant may be convicted of multiple offenses arising from the same act or course of conduct under Penal Code section 954, Penal Code section 654 prohibits multiple punishments for those same acts.

Issues

Whether a defendant can be convicted of multiple offenses arising from the same facts.
Whether a defendant can be punished for multiple offenses arising from the same act or indivisible course of conduct.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and modified.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Penal Code section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for multiple crimes arising out of a single act or an indivisible course of conduct.”

“The judgments of conviction are affirmed as to all counts; the sentences for counts two and three, attempted oral copulation and attempted rape, shall be stayed pending successful completion of the sentence on count one.”

Opinion

STANIFORTH, Acting P. J.

Upon a second jury trial (a mistrial was declared when the jury was unable to reach a verdict in the first trial) defendant Larry Thomas Liakos was found guilty of assault with intent to commit oral copulation and rape, count one; attempted oral copulation, count two; attempted forcible rape, count three; assault, count four; and battery, count five. Liakos was sentenced to prison for the midterm of four years on the assault with intent to commit oral copulation and rape (count one), and two concurrent sentences of three years each on count two and count three. The imposition of sentence on counts four and five was suspended pending completion of the terms on counts one through three.

[723]

Liakos appeals contending (1) he could not be punished for an assault with intent to commit rape and for the crime of attempted rape based upon the same facts, and (2) since he was convicted of assault with intent to commit oral copulation, he could not legally be punished for that crime and for the attempted oral copulation based upon the same facts.

Facts

At about 9:15 a.m. on May 24, 1980, Laurie C. and her boyfriend Jerry Jackson came to their place of employment at Hall Realty in Anaheim. They had an appointment to show houses. Jackson left the front office to seek cigarettes. Laurie saw Liakos at the front door and asked if she could help him. She told Liakos her boyfriend would return any minute. Liakos walked towards her, looked around the office and at her. Laurie became uncomfortable and attempted to leave. She took the keys off the desk and started to leave. Liakos said “No,” grabbed her, and pushed her to the floor on her back. He told her not to scream, started to pull her blouse down, her bra up and kiss her breasts. Laurie spit, growled and kicked at him. She told Liakos she was epileptic. She pleaded and claimed she could not breathe. Liakos put his hand down her throat, told her to shut up and not to scream. He said, “I have got a knife.” Then Liakos sought to compel Laurie to orally copulate him. When he pushed his penis in her mouth she bit it. She again pleaded for him to stop.

Liakos then attempted, by the process of pulling at her pantyhose, to have intercourse with Laurie. While this struggle was going on, Jackson appeared at the door and Laurie yelled “Kill him.” Liakos jumped up and charged at Jackson saying “Fve got a gun.” Jackson seized Liakos but received a blow to the eye and fell to the floor.

People v. Liakos

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief