People v. Canto

Opinion

TODD, J.

Francisco Canto pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851) and four counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460). The court sentenced him to prison for twelve years as follows: the upper term of six years for one of the residential burglaries as the principal term, plus consecutive subordinate terms of sixteen months for each of the other three residential burglaries (one-third the midterm), and consecutive mid-terms of one year each for the two vehicle thefts. On appeal, Canto contends the court erred in imposing subordinate terms in violation of the five-year limit of Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a).

1

We affirm.

[1282]

Discussion

Section 1170.1, subdivision (a) imposes a five-year limit on the total consecutive subordinate terms for offenses that are not “violent felonies” under section 667.5, subdivision (c). Because none of Canto’s convictions was for a violent felony, section 1170.1, subdivision (a) would ordinarily apply to limit the total consecutive subordinate terms to five years. However, the Legislature has determined that certain subordinate terms are to be excluded from the five-year limitation. As is applicable here, section 1170.95, subdivision (a) increases the five-year limitation for consecutive subordinate terms to ten years “for consecutive offenses which are all residential burglaries . . . .”

Canto received a total of six years in consecutive subordinate terms. He contends under section 1170.1, subdivision (a) the court could not impose subordinate terms exceeding the five-year limit. He further contends the exception provided in section 1170.95, subdivision (a) for residential burglaries does not apply where consecutive terms are imposed for offenses other than residential burglaries.

In

People

v.

Jackson

(1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 187, 190 [212 Cal.Rptr. 121], the defendant raised the identical issue, arguing section 1170.95, subdivision (a) did not apply because 11 of his 14 convictions were not for residential burglaries. The court disagreed, however, and after a thorough analysis of the legislative history of section 1170.95, concluded the defendant’s interpretation of that section was “inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed goal of punishing criminals for each residential burglary committed to the maximum extent possible in the face of limited state prison resources. [Citation.]”