Does Coelho have any authority to invoke the "rule of lenity" in the context of sentencing?

Defendant cites People v. Coelho (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 861. This court discussed that case in McCoy, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at page 1339, footnote 6. This court noted that Coelho "extensively develops a methodology for identifying the factual basis of a verdict in the context of determining whether a recidivist provision for mandatory consecutive sentences is applicable. Coelho is premised on a defendant's right under the federal Constitution to a jury trial, concluding as a result that a sentencing court can rely only on the facts that actually were the basis for the jury's verdict. [Citations.] . . . As the right does not apply to statutes that mitigate punishment, such as section 654 [citations], Coelho is not relevant to the present analysis. As for Coelho's invocation of the 'rule of lenity' where the factual basis for a verdict is unclear [citation], this is a 'tie-breaking principle' of statutory interpretation [citation] where evidence of legislative intent is in equipoise as to which of reasonable interpretations should prevail [citation] . . . . Coelho does not provide authority for invoking this principle in the context of sentencing." (McCoy, at p. 1339, fn. 6.)

We conclude there was no sentencing error.

Page 48

The judgment is affirmed.