(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2017; previously amended effective July 28, 1977, January 1, 1991, January 1, 2007, May 23, 2007, and January 1, 2008.)
(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2018; adopted effective January 1, 1991.)
(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2018; adopted effective January 1, 1991; previously amended effective January 1, 2007, May 23, 2007, and January 1, 2008.)
Cal. R. Ct. 4.420
Advisory Committee Comment
The determinate sentencing law authorizes the court to select any of the three possible terms of imprisonment even though neither party has requested a particular term by formal motion or informal argument. Section 1170(b) vests the court with discretion to impose any of the three authorized terms of imprisonment and requires that the court state on the record the reasons for imposing that term.
It is not clear whether the reasons stated by the judge for selecting a particular term qualify as “facts” for the purposes of the rule prohibition on dual use of facts. Until the issue is clarified, judges should avoid the use of reasons that may constitute an impermissible dual use of facts. For example, the court is not permitted to use a reason to impose a greater term if that reason also is either (1) the same as an enhancement that will be imposed, or (2) an element of the crime. The court should not use the same reason to impose a consecutive sentence as to impose an upper term of imprisonment. (People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216, 233.) It is not improper to use the same reason to deny probation and to impose the upper term. (People v. Bowen (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 102, 106.)
The rule makes it clear that a fact charged and found as an enhancement may, in the alternative, be used as a factor in aggravation.
People v. Riolo (1983) 33 Cal.3d 223, 227 (and note 5 on 227) held that section 1170.1(a) does not require the judgment to state the base term (upper, middle, or lower) and enhancements, computed independently, on counts that are subject to automatic reduction under the one-third formula of section 1170.1(a).
Even when sentencing is under section 1170.1, however, it is essential to determine the base term and specific enhancements for each count independently, in order to know which is the principal term count. The principal term count must be determined before any calculation is made using the one-third formula for subordinate terms.
In addition, the base term (upper, middle, or lower) for each count must be determined to arrive at an informed decision whether to make terms consecutive or concurrent; and the base term for each count must be stated in the judgment when sentences are concurrent or are fully consecutive (i.e., not subject to the one-third rule of section 1170.1(a) ).