From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Blea

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Amador
Jul 22, 2008
No. C057468 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDY BLEA, Defendant and Appellant. C057468 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Amador July 22, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 05CR7668

BUTZ, J.

Defendant Andy Blea entered a “straight-up” guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)--count I), two counts of false personation (Pen. Code, § 529--counts II & III), failure to appear (id., § 1320, subd. (b)--count IV), and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)--count V). He also admitted two on-bail enhancements. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in state prison, consisting of: the upper term of three years for possessing methamphetamine, plus two years for the on-bail enhancement; a consecutive eight months (one-third the middle term) for one count of false personation; a consecutive eight months (one-third the middle term) for the second count of false personation; and a consecutive eight months (one-third the middle term) for failing to appear. The court stayed imposition of sentence on the second on-bail enhancement pursuant to section 654.

The trial court sentenced defendant to a concurrent term of six months in jail on the misdemeanor.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred under section 654 in refusing to stay one of the eight-month prison terms imposed for false personation. We agree and shall modify the judgment to stay the eight-month prison term imposed on count III.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 20, 2005, defendant was contacted by a tribal police officer at the Jackson Rancheria Casino. At that time, defendant possessed a plastic key holder containing 0.274 grams of methamphetamine, a usable amount. A deputy with the Amador County Sheriff’s Department later responded to the scene. Defendant identified himself as James Lee Ramsey to both the tribal police officer and sheriff’s deputy. He also used the name James Lee Ramsey while being booked into the county jail, signed a fingerprint card with that name, and on March 21, 2005, was arraigned in the Amador County Superior Court under that name. Defendant was released on his own recognizance under the name James Lee Ramsey. Thereafter, he failed to appear, a warrant was issued, and the real James Lee Ramsey was arrested.

Defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to, among other things, falsely personating James Lee Ramsey on March 20, 2005 (count II) and again on March 21, 2005 (count III). The presentence report recommended the trial court stay defendant’s sentence on count III pursuant to section 654. At his sentencing, defendant argued his sentence on one of the false personation counts should be stayed because the two offenses constituted “a continuing course of conduct. Once he took on the identity of James Lee Ramsey, he didn’t abandon that identity until after he was released and that was within a period of twenty-four hours or less.” The People disagreed, arguing the March 20 and March 21 incidents were “two entirely unrelated offenses where [defendant] used the victim’s name.” The court agreed with the People and declined to stay defendant’s sentence on either count.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to stay his sentence on one of the false personation counts under section 654 because his false personation of James Lee Ramsey on March 20 and March 21, 2005 “were not separate offenses,” but constituted “a continuing, indivisible offense with the single, ultimate objective of deceiving the Amador authorities, whether police or judicial, as to his true identity with regard to the [possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia] offenses committed on March 20, 2005 . . . .” The People respond that section 654 does not apply because defendant “committed separate acts of false personation in separate places, at separate times, with separate aims and consequences.”

Section 654, subdivision (a), states in pertinent part: “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.”

To determine if section 654 applies, a trial court must determine “[w]hether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654[, which] depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.” (Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19.) This applies to sentencing both for crimes flowing from a single act and for crimes resulting from an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one statute. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208.) “It is defendant’s intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. [Citations.] . . . [I]f all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335.) Whether a defendant held multiple criminal objectives is an issue of fact, and if supported by substantial evidence, the trial court’s determination will be upheld on appeal. (People v. Herrera (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1466.)

Here, the evidence does not support a finding defendant held multiple criminal objectives as to the false personation offenses. As the People concede, by identifying himself as James Lee Ramsey to the tribal police officer and sheriff’s deputy, defendant “could reasonably hope to avoid arrest or conviction for possessing a controlled substance.” By maintaining that identity at his arraignment the following day, his objective was the same--to avoid detention and conviction. Indeed, had defendant informed the court of his true name at his arraignment on March 21, his initial objective would have been defeated.

That defendant falsely identified himself to different entities (the tribal police, the Amador County Sheriff’s Department, and the trial court) at different times (March 20 and March 21, 2005), without more, does not support a finding that defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense. (See People v. Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 335; see also In re Hayes (1969) 70 Cal.2d 604, 609.) Thus, the trial court erred in failing to stay defendant’s sentence on one of the false personation counts.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to stay the eight-month prison term imposed for count III. Defendant’s aggregate, unstayed prison term is modified to six years four months. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect this modification and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J., HULL, J.


Summaries of

People v. Blea

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Amador
Jul 22, 2008
No. C057468 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Blea

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDY BLEA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Amador

Date published: Jul 22, 2008

Citations

No. C057468 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2008)