# People v. Deloza

> California Supreme Court · July 9, 1998 · 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849217

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID DELOZA, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 9, 1998
- **Citations:** 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255; 18 Cal. 4th 585; 98 Daily Journal DAR 7525; 957 P.2d 945; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5393; 1998 Cal. LEXIS 4037
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Brown, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 380 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849217

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J., Concurring.
I concur fully in the majority’s holding that the voters who enacted the initiative version of the “Three Strikes” law have given trial courts discretion in cases such as this to decide whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for defendant’s four robbery convictions because those crimes were committed on the “same occasion.” (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (a)(6).) I write separately to note the following:
At oral argument, the Attorney General contended that the purpose of the Three Strikes law, of which Penal Code section 1170.12 is a part, was to increase the existing punishments for repeat offenders, and that to interpret Penal Code section 1170.12 as not requiring consecutive sentences in this case would circumvent that goal.
I agree with the Attorney General that punishment, in general, should be commensurate with culpability and that repeat offenders deserve greater punishment. Our decision today upholds that principle. A jury convicted defendant of four counts of second degree robbery and found that in each robbery a principal was armed. The jury also found that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions, thus bringing defendant under the Three Strikes law. Had defendant not been subject to the Three Strikes law, his maximum possible term would have been nineteen years—five years for one robbery count (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (a)(2)), three years total for the other three robbery counts (id., 1170.1, subd. (a)), ten years for the two prior serious felony enhancements (id., § 667, subd. (a)(1)), and one year for one arming enhancement (id., § 12022, subd. (a)(1)) (the trial court stayed the other three arming enhancements). But because defendant’s prior felony convictions subject him to the Three Strikes law, he faces substantially *603 greater punishment. Under the Three Strikes law, on resentencing defendant will be subject to a minimum term of 36 years to life if the trial court imposes concurrent sentences for all 4 robberies (4 sentences of 25 years to life (Pen. Code, § 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)(ii)) imposed concurrently plus the 11 years of enhancements), and he will be subject to a maximum term of 111 years to life if the trial court in its discretion again imposes consecutive sentences for all 4 robberies (4 sentences of 25 years to life imposed consecutively plus the 11 years of enhancements). This is hardly lenient treatment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849217. Public record. Not legal advice.