People v. Story CA3

Opinion

Filed 9/17/26 P. v. Story CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba)

THE PEOPLE, C103729 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2303184) v. RODNEY STEPHEN STORY, Defendant and Appellant.

After stealing two lengths of copper wire from an AT&T manhole, defendant Rodney Stephen Story pled no contest to charges of grand theft and receiving stolen property in exchange for two years of probation and the dismissal of other charges. Defendant then violated probation and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of two years for theft and eight months for receiving stolen property. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by not staying his sentence for receiving stolen property.1 We agree that section 654 requires one of defendant’s sentences to be stayed and remand the matter for resentencing.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 I. BACKGROUND During a nighttime traffic stop, a sheriff’s deputy noticed a length of insulated copper wire with an attached coupler lying in the rear seat of defendant’s vehicle. After another deputy asked defendant about the wire, defendant admitted there was more wire in his trunk. Deputies then opened the trunk to find a second piece of copper wire, a large set of bolt cutters, two sets of cutting shears, a hand saw, a hand grinder with a cutting wheel, climbing spikes, and a pry bar. The hand grinder, defendant’s hands, and the sleeves of defendant’s jacket all had copper dust on them. Deputies searched the vehicle and found ammunition. The following afternoon, AT&T cable technicians reported the theft of wire from a nearby location. Approximately 100 yards from where deputies spotted defendant the previous night, wires worth between $5,000 and $10,000 had been cut from an AT&T manhole. A deputy showed the technicians photographs of the wires seized from defendant’s vehicle the previous night, and the technicians identified the wires as being consistent with those cut from the manhole. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of ammunition, grand theft, receiving stolen property, vandalism, and alteration of burglar’s tools. He agreed to plead no contest to grand theft and receiving stolen property in exchange for two years of formal probation with a 60-day jail term and no immediate local prison time, dismissal of the ammunition and burglar’s tools charges, and dismissal of the vandalism charge with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Defendant’s plea form listed the minimum and maximum penalties for his theft and stolen property charges and indicated his total aggregate exposure for those charges was three years eight months. The court approved the plea deal and stayed imposition of defendant’s sentence. Defendant did not object. Ten months later, defendant violated probation. At sentencing, the court noted defendant was previously convicted “for the same thing” in 2008, with possession of 2 wires, a pipe cutter, and a flashlight. The court said defendant “tells the Court that he simply is going to continue in this cycle of drugs … and stealing to support that habit. It’s pretty obvious what was going on here.” The court then denied reinstatement of probation and sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of two years for grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) and eight months for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). Defendant timely appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant contends his sentence for receiving stolen property must be stayed under section 654. Specifically, defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s implied finding that he stole the copper wires and then retained possession of those wires for separate objectives. The People claim defendant forfeited this argument by agreeing to a maximum term of three years eight months when making his plea agreement and failing to assert any claim under section 654 when that agreement was recited on the record. We agree with defendant that section 654 requires one of his sentences to be stayed. Where, as here, probation is revoked after imposition of sentence was previously suspended, a court must determine all matters necessary for sentencing, including whether section 654 applies. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.435(b)(1), 4.433(c)(3), 4.424.) “Section 654 precludes multiple punishment where an act or course of conduct violates more than one criminal statute but a defendant has only a single intent and objective.” (People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338 (McCoy).) When section 654 applies, the trial court has the discretion to select which statute to punish the defendant under and must stay execution of the other, duplicative sentences. (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379.) We review the trial court’s explicit or implicit factual findings on section 654 issues for substantial evidence. (McCoy, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.) “The 3 failure of defendant to object on this basis in the trial court does not forfeit the issue on appeal.” (Ibid.) Here, the record shows that defendant cut copper wires out of an AT&T manhole and was apprehended a short distance away from that manhole with those wires still in his possession. At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it was “pretty obvious” that defendant stole the wire for the purpose of obtaining possession of it and then using it to support his drug habit. The record contains no evidence to the contrary. Under these circumstances, section 654 prohibits defendant from being punished for both theft and possession. (See People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 866-867; In re Adams (1975) 14 Cal.3d 629, 634.) Although the People claim defendant forfeited his section 654 argument by agreeing to a maximum term of three years eight months, the record shows that defendant did not agree to that term. It is true that defendant was informed of his maximum and minimum exposures at the time he agreed to the plea deal. But that information was not a term of the plea deal itself – it was neither listed as a term of the plea agreement nor recited or agreed to on the record. Moreover, “it is well established” that where, as here, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and “ ‘a defendant granted probation as part of a plea bargain violates that probation, subsequent sentencing is not limited by the terms of the original plea.’ ” (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 934, italics omitted.) Consequently, we cannot agree with the People’s claim that defendant’s original plea agreement bars his claim under section 654. We conclude section 654 requires either defendant’s sentence for grand theft or his sentence for receiving stolen property to be stayed. So that the trial court may exercise its discretion under that section to select the sentence to stay, we remand the matter for resentencing.

4 III. DISPOSITION Defendant’s sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court shall select a sentence to stay execution of pursuant to section 654. Following resentencing, the trial court shall issue an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

/S/ RENNER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/ KRAUSE, J.

/S/ MESIWALA, J.