People v. Davis

California Court of Appeal May 15, 1987 No. No. B016933Published

Before: Ashby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant may be separately punished for rape and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery when the crimes represent independent criminal objectives, even if they occur during a single course of conduct. The court reversed a conviction for simple kidnapping as a lesser included offense and stayed a sentencing enhancement based on the same act as the primary kidnapping charge.

Issues

Whether a defendant can be separately punished for rape and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery arising from the same course of conduct.
Whether a conviction for simple kidnapping must be reversed when it is a lesser included offense of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery.
Whether a sentencing enhancement under Penal Code section 667.8 must be stayed when based on the same act as the primary kidnapping conviction.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If he entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective”

“In this case appellant entertained multiple criminal objectives, to rob and to rape. Even if the kidnapping was common to both, rape and robbery were in no way merely incidental to each other”

Opinion

ASHBY, J. By jury trial appellant was convicted on six counts involving two victims. As to victim Karen J., appellant was convicted of (1) kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)); (2) simple kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207), enhanced by a finding pursuant to Penal Code section 667.8 that the kidnapping was for the purpose of rape; (3) rape (Pen. Code, §261, subd. (2)); and (4) robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). As to victim Melody T., appellant was convicted of (1) kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)) and (2) robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).

He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms on the two counts of kidnapping to commit robbery, plus eleven consecutive years, consisting of an upper term of eight years for rape and a three-year enhancement pursuant to section 667.8. Execution of sentence on the other three counts was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

Appellant raises additional issues under Penal Code section 654.

Karen J.

As Karen J. was entering her van after shopping on the afternoon of January 7, 1985, appellant pushed his way into the van and took over the controls, telling her that he had a gun in his pocket and that he would shoot her if she screamed. After driving a short way, he demanded her money and she gave him $23 from her purse. Laying the money on the ashtray, appellant put his arm around the victim and told her to sit close to him like a girlfriend. He drove to an unpopulated area where he raped the victim in the back of the van. After the rape, he drove around some more until the van ran out of gas; he removed additional personal property from her purse, then ran.

[1368]Melody T.

After Melody T. was preparing to leave a supermarket parking lot on December 18, 1984, appellant forced his way into her car, telling her that he had a gun in his pocket. After he took over the controls of the car, he asked if she had a bank card. When she said she did, appellant said they were going to take money out of her account. She used her bank card to withdraw from an automated teller $120 which appellant took. After they got back in the car, appellant asked if she ever had sex with a Black man; when she begged him not to rape her, he replied she had a treat in store for her. However, when appellant stopped at a gas station because the gas gauge read empty, the victim escaped.

People v. Davis

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief