The People of the State of California v. Emmanuel Garcia

Bakersfield, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with buying and receiving stolen vehicles.



On May 7, 2021, the Kern County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with buying or receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a); count 1), driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety of persons or property while fleeing a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 2), evading a peace officer by driving on a highway in the opposite direction of traffic (Veh. Code, § 2800.4; count 3), misdemeanor driving on a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 4), misdemeanor failing to notify a property owner after a collision resulting in damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 5), misdemeanor resisting or obstructing a police

officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 6), and misdemeanor possession of a device used for unlawfully injecting or smoking a controlled substance (Health &Saf. Code, § 11364; count 7).[2] As to count 1, the information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior vehicle theft conviction (§ 666.5, subd. (a)).



On August 2, 2021, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts. On the same date, at a bifurcated proceeding outside the presence of the jury, the trial court found the prior conviction allegation as to count 1 to be true in reliance on a certified copy of defendant's RAP sheet.



On August 27, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years eight months as follows: on count 1, four years (the upper term); on count 2, eight months (one-third the middle term), consecutive to the term on count 1; on count 3, three years (the upper term), stayed pursuant to section 654 "until the successful completion of the sentence imposed above in [c]ounts 1 and 2"; on counts 4, 5, and 7, 180 days in jail, concurrent with the sentence on count 1; and on count 6, one year in jail, concurrent with the sentence on count 1.



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING. The case addresses whether a sentencing error occurred when the defendant was sentenced to upper terms based on aggravating factors not found true by a jury or admitted by the defendant, pursuant to Senate Bill 567 and the amendments to Penal Code section 1170, which requires facts underlying circumstances in aggravation to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or stipulated by the defendant.



CRIMINAL LAW. MULTIPLE COUNTS AND SECTION 654. The court considered whether Penal Code section 654 precluded separate sentencing for charges that were part of a continuous course of conduct with a single objective, particularly focusing on whether the defendant's actions of fleeing and hiding from police were divisible in time and intent from earlier acts of evasion.



Key Phrases California Court of Appeals. Senate Bill 567 amendments. Resisting a police officer conviction. Aggravating circumstances not proved. Harmless error analysis.

Defendant's sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for full resentencing in conformity with section 1170, subdivision (b). The People may elect to retry the aggravating facts on remand. In all other respects, the sentence is affirmed.