People v. Gonzalez

California Court of Appeal Jul 10, 2002 No. G025767Published

Before: Aronson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that defendants did not waive their challenge to an impermissible dual use of sentencing facts because the trial court failed to provide them with a meaningful opportunity to object by not apprising them of the intended sentence and supporting reasons beforehand.

Issues

Whether the trial court's reliance on the same fact to both aggravate a base term and impose a firearm enhancement constitutes an impermissible dual use of facts.
Whether a defendant waives a claim of sentencing error by failing to object when the trial court does not provide a tentative ruling or prior notice of the intended sentence and reasons.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“court generally cannot use a single fact both to aggravate the base term and to impose an enhancement”

“defendants who fail to object to the trial court's discretionary sentencing choices waive or forfeit those issues, but only if "apprised" of the sentence contemplated by the court and the reasons supporting it.”

“In short, defendants had no inkling the court would improperly use the same fact to both aggravate their sentence and impose the gun enhancement.”

118 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1087 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Alejandro P. GONZALEZ et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. G025767. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

April 19, 2002. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 20, 2002. Review Granted July 10, 2002. Harvey L. Goldhammer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Glendale, for Defendant and Appellant Alejandro P. Gonzalez.

Deborah L. Hawkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jaime Pano.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Pamela R. Ratner and Marilyn L. George, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certified for Partial Publication.[*]

OPINION

ARONSON, J.

Alejandro Gonzalez and Jaime Pano were convicted of kidnapping, carjacking, robbery, and making terrorist threats and personal use of firearm allegations were found true. Gonzalez and Pano complain of an impermissible dual use of facts, claiming the trial court relied on their use of a gun during the crime to aggravate the carjacking count and enhance the sentence. They also contend the trial court violated their due process rights in ordering direct victim restitution without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Both contentions have merit, and we remand for resentencing only.

[851] I

Dominguez Sosa, a part-time jewelry salesman working out of his home, left his residence in the early evening to meet "Jorge," a potential customer. Sosa returned home when the putative buyer did not keep the appointment. Later, Jorge called and made arrangements with Sosa for another rendezvous. Sosa left the house without his inventory of jewelry, storing it in a locked closet.

As Sosa backed his car out of the driveway, Gonzalez approached and identified himself as Jorge. Taking a position in the front passenger seat, Gonzalez pulled a handgun from his waistband, and ordered Sosa to drive. Pano emerged from the bushes and got in the back seat. Pano took the gun and ordered Sosa into the passenger seat. Gonzalez threatened to harm Sosa's family if he did not cooperate, claiming two confederates were in his garage awaiting instructions. Taking the wheel, Gonzalez drove off with his captive.

People v. Gonzalez

AI Brief

OPINION

ARONSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief