From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. LeFevre

Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
Nov 6, 2003
No. H025629 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2003)

Opinion

H025629.

11-6-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN MICHAEL LEFEVRE, Defendant and Appellant.


Defendant Brian Michael LeFevre was convicted at court trial of threatening, assaulting and battering, and falsely imprisoning his mother Janice LeFevre and her friend Glenda Sanderson for which he received two years and eight months in state prison. He claims on appeal there was sentencing error.

FACTS

On April 17, 2002, before 8:30 a.m., defendant let himself into his mothers house and waited for her in the kitchen. She came in to prepare breakfast around 8:30 a.m., and they ate breakfast and defendant watched television. Glenda Sanderson, a longtime friend, arrived around 10:30 a.m. to help defendants mother with a household chore. Sandersons arrival caused defendant to become suddenly and visibly agitated. He abruptly left and drove his truck across the yard and into the middle of the street. Then, leaving his truck there with the engine running and the drivers door open, he reentered the residence. He looked "[o]bviously upset," and confronted the women with what both described as a menacing and frightening demeanor.

Defendant stated the house belonged to him, and demanded that his mother turn over the contents of her bank account to him and give him the house without delay. He then grabbed her by the throat with one hand and backed her into the kitchen, applying pressure so that her head was lifted up. He backed her into a chair and told Sanderson to sit down also. She did; she did not want a confrontation.

Defendant then screamed profanities at both women, telling them they were going to die because they were witches. He accused both women of plotting against him, screaming and shouting that God had told him how to deal with them. Defendant shouted that he had conversed with God and Jesus and had observed the devil walking back and forth in front of his house. His veins protruded from his face and neck, his eyes were bulging and saliva was flying from his mouth.

For about half a minute, defendant had both hands around his mothers neck and was inches from her face screaming at her. She had tears in her eyes and had a glassy-eyed look. At one point defendant hold her, "nothing personal, mother, but you have to die."

The telephone rang. Defendant screamed obscenities into it and slammed it down. He did the same thing when it rang a second time. When it rang a third time, defendant ripped it from the wall and threw it on the floor. Defendants mother testified she did not feel free to leave the kitchen. Defendant continued yelling and pounded the kitchen table, knocking over a plant.

Defendant took his mother by the throat again, using his left hand and drawing his right hand back in a fist. Sanderson told defendant that Gods law is to honor ones mother. Defendant released his mother and approached Sanderson, standing two or three inches from her, eyes and veins bulging, and screamed that she should "sit the F down." Feeling she had no other choice, she did so. She was intimidated by defendant and fearful of him. She was afraid that if she and defendants mother became separated, defendant would hurt his mother.

Defendant then decided it was time for them to go to the bank where his mother had an account and afterwards proceed to the title company. Defendant told Mrs. Sanderson not to move or speak and then ordered her to accompany him and his mother. Before they could leave for the bank, a discussion started about how they would proceed, and at the end of it, defendant ordered Sanderson to leave and never return to his house. Sanderson took the opportunity to call 911. Sheriffs deputies apprehended defendant as he and his mother were leaving the house.

Defendants mother testified she thought he might kill her before they went to the bank because defendant was being very unpredictable. She thought if they did go to the bank there might be potential for escape. She "felt very in fear. And . . . not in control of the situation at all." A psychiatrist and a psychotherapist examined defendant and both found that defendant suffered from a major mental illness as well as drug addiction.

Defendant was found guilty at court trial of making threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury to Janice LeFevre, Glenda Sanderson, and Bruce LeFevre (Pen. Code, § 422, counts 1 through 3), the false imprisonment of Janice LeFevre and Glenda Sanderson (§§ 236, 237, counts 4 and 5), and misdemeanor battery on Janice LeFevre (§ 242, count 6). The court sentenced defendant to one year, four months on count 1, eight months consecutive on both counts 2 and 3, concurrent sentences of one year and four months on counts 4 and 5, and three months in the county jail concurrent with the rest of the sentence on count 6. This appeal ensued.

Bruce LeFevre is defendants younger brother. Defendant states it involved "an entirely separate incident the facts of which are neither presented here, nor considered germane to the grounds and purpose of the appeal herein."

Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

ISSUE ON APPEAL

Defendant contends that the concurrent sentences imposed for false imprisonment violate the prohibition against multiple punishment of section 654 because both crimes were committed pursuant to a single objective.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that his conduct did not constitute separate acts of violence, each of which could be punished separately, but rather was focused upon a "principal objective" and constituted a single course of conduct. Defendants objective was getting "his house" from his mother. While he violated more than one statute, all his conduct was in support of that objective and purpose. The restriction on the victims movement was thus incidental to the threats he made and for which he was sentenced to one year and four months in state prison.

"Section 654, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part, `[a]n 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. Section 654 therefore `"precludes multiple punishment for a single act or for a course of conduct comprising indivisible acts. `Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible . . . depends on the intent and objective of the actor. [Citations.] `[I]f all 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. [Citation.]" [Citation.] [Citations.] However, if the defendant harbored `multiple or simultaneous objectives, independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the defendant may be punished for each violation committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations share common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. [Citation.] [Citations.]

"Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. [Citations.] Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. [Citations.] We review the trial courts determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence." (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1142-1143.)

The parties did not raise the section 654 issue at sentencing and the trial court made no findings on the record. The People declare that the restraint defendant put on his mothers freedom of movement was a separate act and was not an element of or necessary to the threats he was conveying. The People claim that defendants crime of falsely imprisoning his mother was merely incidental to his objective in making threats with the goal of obtaining his mothers property.

We agree with defendant that the evidence supports a finding he had only one objective in the crimes against his mother-the ultimate goal of obtaining her property. No other purpose for the false imprisonment makes itself evident from the testimony of the victims. Thus, the sentence on count 4 should have been stayed. Similarly, the crimes against Glenda Sanderson seem to have been made for one purpose-keeping her under control, that is, unable to obtain help, while he intimidated his mother. For this reason the sentence on count 5 should have been stayed also.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to order the sentences on counts 4 and 5 stayed and the clerk is ordered to send a corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J. and Elia, J.


Summaries of

People v. LeFevre

Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.
Nov 6, 2003
No. H025629 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2003)
Case details for

People v. LeFevre

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN MICHAEL LEFEVRE, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.

Date published: Nov 6, 2003

Citations

No. H025629 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2003)