People v. Allen CA3

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Allen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098359

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE006983)

v.

CHARLES E. ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

In September 2020, defendant Charles E. Allen was convicted of making criminal threats and sentenced to state prison (the 2020 conviction is not at issue in this appeal). (Pen. Code, § 422.)1 In March 2022, while he was in prison on the 2020 conviction, he

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

exposed himself to a prison psychiatric technician. Defendant completed his prison term for the 2020 conviction in November 2022. In February 2023, a jury found defendant guilty of unlawful indecent exposure. (§ 314, subd. (1).) The jury also found true two aggravating sentencing factors and that defendant had a prior strike. (§§ 1170, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(b)(3), 4.421(b)(5).) Later that month, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of two years, doubled due to the prior strike. During the sentencing hearing, the court noted that, had defendant pleaded guilty to the current crime while he was still in prison for the 2020 conviction, he only would have been sentenced to one-third of the middle term doubled due to the strike, or 16 months. But, defendant was now subject to the full term for the current crime. The court opined the government was not at fault for any delay, given that it had filed charges against defendant less than two months after the exposure incident. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to a full term for the conviction instead of applying the one-third of the middle term rule under section 1170.1, subdivision (a). We will affirm.

DISCUSSION Generally, when an individual is convicted of multiple felonies and a trial court imposes consecutive terms, the aggregate sentence is the sum of the longest term (the principal term) plus one-third of the middle term of the remaining counts (subordinate terms). (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).) This rule applies whether the defendant has been convicted of multiple felonies in the same proceeding or court, or in different proceedings or courts. (Ibid.) However, the rule is different for in-custody felonies: “In the case of any person convicted of one or more felonies committed while the person is confined in the state prison . . . and . . . the court imposes consecutive terms, the term of imprisonment for all