People v. Ornelas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082988 · 2024-03-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FSB22002673
Trial judge: Harold T. Wilson, Jr.
Outcome: modified — Affirmed as modified.
Area: criminal
Panel: Laurence D. Rubin (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:16Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to 26 years and eight months, including four separate enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (b) for committing crimes while on bail. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as modified, striking three of the enhancements because only one such enhancement may be imposed per case.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of four separate enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (b) tied to specific counts. “Consequently, a trial court may only impose one section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement.”	de novo	error	agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements are offender-based rather than count-based, meaning only one can be imposed per case. The trial court's imposition of four such enhancements was a clear error of law, and the People's concession of this error allowed for a straightforward modification of the sentence.

Authorities

relied: People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 — Section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements do not attach to particular counts but are added once as the final step in computing the total sentence.
relied: People v. Mackabee (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1250 — A trial court may only impose one section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement per case.
relied: People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181 — Section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements relate to the nature of the offender rather than the nature of the crimes charged.
relied: People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380 — Overruled People v. Tassell on other grounds, but the specific proposition regarding the single imposition of section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements remains valid.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies established California precedent that section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements are offender-based and limited to one per case. The court's reliance on People v. Tassell and its progeny provides the correct legal framework for modifying the sentence.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The San Bernardino Superior Court sentenced Ornelas to 26 years eight months after a jury convicted him of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, felon in possession, burglary, kidnapping, criminal threats and related counts, and the court attached four count-specific on-bail enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (b), imposing two and staying two. On appeal the People conceded error, and the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to strike all but one section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement, applied to the case as a whole, and affirmed as modified.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of four count-specific on-bail enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (b) (two imposed, two stayed) “a trial court may only impose one section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement.”	de novo	error (law misapplied)	agree with court The opinion does not expressly state a standard, but whether multiple section 12022.1(b) enhancements may be imposed is a pure question of law about an unauthorized sentence. Tassell, Mackabee and Nguyen treat the on-bail enhancement as a status enhancement added once to the aggregate sentence rather than attached to counts, so striking the extra enhancements follows from those authorities. The one gap is that the opinion recites Ornelas was on bail in 'other cases' (plural) yet does not consider whether separate primary cases could support separate enhancements under People v. Augborne; because the People conceded and the court did not address it, the result is defensible on this record but not fully reasoned.

Authorities

relied: People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 — Status enhancements that relate to the offender rather than the offense do not attach to particular counts but are added once as the final step in computing the total sentence.
relied: People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380 — Overruled Tassell on other grounds (admissibility of uncharged-conduct evidence), leaving Tassell's sentencing holding intact.
relied: People v. Mackabee (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1250 — Only one section 12022.1 on-bail enhancement may be imposed; it applies to the aggregate sentence, not to individual counts.
relied: People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181 — The section 12022.1 enhancement is a single enhancement added once to the total term rather than to each count committed while on bail.
missed: People v. Augborne (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 362 — Where a defendant was released on bail in more than one separate primary case, a separate section 12022.1 enhancement may be imposed for each primary release; the opinion notes Ornelas was on bail in 'other cases' but does not address this possibility.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Tassell, Mackabee and Nguyen to hold that section 12022.1(b) is a status enhancement imposed once per case rather than per count, and the People's concession supports the modification. It did not, however, address whether the plural 'other cases' in which Ornelas was on bail could have supported more than one enhancement under Augborne, so the opinion skips a potentially relevant authority even though the result is defensible given the concession.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Ornelas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082988

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB22002673)

RAYMOND MICHAEL ORNELAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Harold T. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Affirmed as modified. Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Raymond Michael Ornelas of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (b)), three counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), first degree burglary (§ 459), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), simple assault (§ 240), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The jury found true allegations that Ornelas personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that a person was present in the residence at the time of the first degree burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)). In a bifurcated trial, the court found true that Ornelas was released on bail at the time he committed four of the charged offenses. At sentencing the court imposed a total term of 26 years and eight months, including four two-year on-bail enhancements (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)) tied to specific counts; the court imposed two of those enhancements and stayed the other two. Ornelas appeals, contending the trial court erred in imposing more than one enhancement under section 12022.1, subdivision (b). The People properly concede the court erred in imposing multiple enhancements under section 12022.1, subdivision (b). We modify the judgment to strike the unauthorized portion of the sentence. BACKGROUND Ornelas committed multiple crimes after authorities released him on bail following his arrest in other cases.2 While out of custody on those matters Ornelas, with a firearm, broke into a former girlfriend’s house, took one of their shared children without the girlfriend’s consent, threatened to shoot and kill his ex-girlfriend, and also assaulted her. After a trial on these 1 Future undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 We provide an abbreviated summary of the facts because they are not relevant to the issue on appeal. 2 offenses, a jury convicted Ornelas of them and found true various allegations. The court sentenced Ornelas to a total term of 26 years and eight months which included four count-specific section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements for committing crimes while free on bail. Ornelas appeals, asserting error in imposing sentences for multiple on-bail findings. The People concede the error and do not oppose a sentence modification. DISCUSSION As part of Ornelas’s sentence in this matter, the court erroneously imposed four enhancements under section 12022.1, subdivision (b). Section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements relate to the nature of the offender rather than the nature of the crimes charged. Consequently, a trial court may only impose one section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement. (People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 90 [such enhancements “do not attach to particular counts but instead are added just once as the final step in computing the total sentence”], overruled on other grounds by People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 398-402; People v. Mackabee (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1250, 1261-1262; People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 195-196.) Consequently, the court erred by imposing multiple section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancements and tying those to specific counts. The People properly concede that a court may only impose one 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement in a case and do not oppose modification of the sentence. We therefore modify the judgment to correct the error. DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to strike all but one section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement. The remaining enhancement applies to the entire case and not a particular count. The court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the defendant’s sentence as 3 modified and to forward the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Ewoldt S023804 · 1994-02-28
People v. MacKabee C004253 · 1989-10-18
People v. Nguyen G004315 · 1988-08-29
People v. Tassell Crim. 22823 · 1984-04-20