What is the test for determining whether a defendant harbored single or multiple objectives during a course of criminal conduct?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Calderon, B267196 (Cal. App. 2016):
The issue of whether a defendant harbored a single or multiple objectives during a course of criminal conduct is a factual question for the trial court. (People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162.) We review this
Page 7
determination for substantial evidence, and presume in support of the court's conclusion the existence of every fact the court could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143.)
2. Analysis
The trial court did not make any express findings about defendant's objectives in committing the various offenses. The only explanation the court gave for any of its sentencing choices came at the end of the sentencing hearing, when the court stated, "I am choosing consecutive as to counts 4 and 5 because it involved two different individuals and two different conduct." The court's imposition of a concurrent term for count 8 is, however, "treated as an implied finding that the defendant bore multiple intents or objectives, that is, as a rejection of the applicability of section 654. [Citations.]" (People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
