People v. Dominguez

California Court of Appeal Nov 1, 2002 No. B154266Published

Before: Yegan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court failed to make the necessary factual findings regarding intent and motivation under Penal Code section 654 and failed to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, necessitating a remand for resentencing.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for assault with a firearm.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make required factual findings under Penal Code section 654 regarding multiple punishments.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.

Disposition. vacated and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record does not disclose how close or far in time and distance the subsequent shots were to the robbery, whether they could be deemed part of the robbery, or whether they were separate and distinct therefrom.”

“The factual uncertainties in the record and the trial court's failure to state reasons for consecutive sentencing require that we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.”

125 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 880 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

William DOMINGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B154266. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six.

October 7, 2002. As Modified November 1, 2002. [876] Jeffrey A. Needelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc E. Turchin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Analee J. Nations, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[875] YEGAN, J.

We publish this opinion as an entreaty to the criminal trial courts to follow the sentencing rules and make record which permits intelligent appellate review. This is not the first time that the Court of Appeal has reversed for the trial court's failure to comply with its duties pursuant to Penal Code section 654.[1] In People v. Lowe (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 792, 796, 119 Cal.Rptr. 699, the Court of Appeal, in no uncertain terms, criticized the trial court for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 654. It noted that failure to do so increased the workload of the Court of Appeal and wasted the money of the taxpayers. Those observations are here apposite. This appeal, while important to the instant litigants, is pedestrian and could have been mercifully affirmed had the trial court made an appropriate record.

William Dominguez appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him, as an aider and abettor, of second degree robbery (§ 211) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) with special findings that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to prison for three years on the robbery count, one year for the firearm enhancement appended thereto, and a one-year consecutive sentence on the assault with firearm count. We vacate the sentence, remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.

People v. Dominguez

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief