People v. Canto
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO CANTO, Defendant and Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, Nos. CR122959, CR122960 and CR122961, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. [fn*] [fn*] Judge
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County
- Trial judge
- Charles G. Rogers
- Outcome
- affirmed — The judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Kathryn Todd (author)
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve years in prison, including six years of consecutive subordinate terms for residential burglary and vehicle theft counts. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the ten-year limit for consecutive subordinate terms for residential burglaries under Penal Code section 1170.95 applied despite the presence of non-burglary convictions.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of six years of consecutive subordinate terms (exceeding the standard five-year limit) for residential burglary and vehicle theft convictions.“Although the total of the consecutive subordinate terms was six years, the court properly sentenced Canto in accord with the legislative intent to punish those who commit multiple residential burglaries as mandated by section 1170.95, subdivision (a).” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the statutory exception in Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (a), which raises the limit on consecutive subordinate terms to ten years for residential burglaries. The court relied on People v. Jackson to reject the argument that the exception only applies when *all* convictions are residential burglaries, finding that the legislative intent was to prevent a 'loophole' where defendants could avoid enhanced sentencing by committing other crimes. The reasoning is supported by the cited authorities and the text of the statute. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Jackson (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 187 — Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (a) increases the limit on consecutive subordinate terms for residential burglaries to ten years even when the defendant is also convicted of non-burglary offenses.
- relied: People v. Navarro (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1144 — Supports the interpretation that residential burglary convictions warrant increased consecutive sentencing limits under section 1170.95.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it directly addresses the appellant's argument regarding the scope of the statutory exception and relies on binding precedent (People v. Jackson) that explicitly rejects the appellant's interpretation. The court correctly identifies the legislative intent behind section 1170.95 to prevent a 'loophole' in sentencing for multiple residential burglaries.
The trial court sentenced Canto, who pleaded guilty to four residential burglaries and two vehicle thefts, to twelve years, including six years of consecutive subordinate terms (four years for three burglaries and two years for the vehicle thefts), exceeding the five-year cap of Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a). The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding under People v. Jackson that section 1170.95, subdivision (a) raises the cap to ten years for residential burglaries even when the defendant is also sentenced consecutively for non-burglary offenses.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of six years of consecutive subordinate terms (three 16-month residential burglary terms plus two one-year vehicle theft terms) notwithstanding the five-year limit of section 1170.1, subdivision (a), on the ground that section 1170.95, subdivision (a) applies to the residential burglary terms.“A logical reading of that provision requires the increased limits on subordinate terms to apply to all convictions for residential burglaries, regardless of whether a defendant is convicted of other offenses to which the five-year limit of section 1170.1 applies.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The issue is purely one of statutory construction, which the court resolved independently without articulating a standard. Canto's textual argument has some force because section 1170.95, subdivision (a) speaks of consecutive offenses 'which are all residential burglaries,' but People v. Jackson had already construed the provision in light of its legislative history to reach mixed-offense cases, and the court here reasonably followed that published authority. Under either a ten-year aggregate cap or a five-year cap on the non-burglary terms plus a ten-year cap on the burglary terms, the six-year total (four burglary, two non-burglary) is within limits, so the result is correct on any plausible reading. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Jackson (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 187 — Section 1170.95, subdivision (a) increases the limit on consecutive subordinate terms for residential burglaries even where the defendant is also convicted of and sentenced consecutively for offenses that are not residential burglaries; limiting it to cases where all offenses are residential burglaries would produce an absurd result contrary to legislative intent.
- relied: People v. Navarro (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1144 — Section 1170.95, subdivision (a) reflects a legislative policy determination that residential burglaries pose a unique threat warranting increased limits on consecutive sentencing.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court squarely addressed the single sentencing argument raised, adopted the reasoning of a directly on-point published decision (Jackson) that had analyzed the legislative history, and the arithmetic of the sentence falls within the limits under any reasonable construction of sections 1170.1 and 1170.95. The analysis is brief and does not independently grapple with the statutory text ('all residential burglaries'), but it relies on an authority that did, so the result is well supported.
Opinion — Todd
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.]” (People v. Jackson, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 194.) The court reasoned that “[a]n absurd result would occur if. . . section 1170.95 were to be construed as increasing subordinate terms . . . only when a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses which are all residential burglaries. Under such a construction, [defendant] and persons similarly situated would continue to be ‘immune’ from appropriate punishment for their multiple acts of residential burglary merely because they were also charged with, and convicted of, committing other crimes, a result expressly considered and rejected by the Legislature as a ‘loophole in the law.’ ” (Ibid., italics in original.)
Although Canto disagrees with the Jackson court’s interpretation of section 1170.95, subdivision (a), we do not. A logical reading of that provision requires the increased limits on subordinate terms to apply to all convictions for residential burglaries, regardless of whether a defendant is convicted of *1283 other offenses to which the five-year limit of section 1170.1 applies. As stated by the court in Jackson, the enactment of section 1170.95, subdivision (a) represents a policy determination that residential burglaries pose a unique threat to society warranting a substantial increase in the otherwise existing limitations on consecutive sentencing. (People v. Jackson, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 193; see also People v. Navarro (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1144, 1151 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 245.].)
Here, Canto’s consecutive subordinate sentence consisted of three 16-month terms (four years) on each of the residential burglaries other than the principal burglary count. The consecutive total for the nonburglary counts was two years. Although the total of the consecutive subordinate terms was six years, the court properly sentenced Canto in accord with the legislative intent to punish those who commit multiple residential burglaries as mandated by section 1170.95, subdivision (a).
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
Work, Acting R J., and Nares, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 24, 1992.
In light of Canto’s guilty plea and the single, narrow sentencing issue presented on appeal, we need not recite a statement of facts.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Navarro No. F013772 · 1991-10-31
- People v. Jackson B006262 · 1985-03-27
Cited by
- The People v. Sibbu CA1/2 A136486 · 2013-09-25
- People v. Carter C021506 · 1997-10-01