California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Wilson, 135 Cal.App.3d 343, 185 Cal.Rptr. 498 (Cal. App. 1982):
This suggested sentencing procedure, which is not exclusive, is not subject to the prohibition against dual use of facts. As noted later (see fn. 5, post ), it would be nearly impossible to formulate a set of criteria for the utilization of section 667.6, subdivision (c), that would be separate and distinct from the criteria listed in rule 425. Moreover, any circumstances which justifies imposition of full consecutive terms under section 667.6, subdivision (c), would of necessity justify imposition of consecutive sentences under section 1170.1, subdivision (a). (Cf. People v. Karsai (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 224, 238, 182 Cal.Rptr. 406.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.