P. v. Virag



Filed 4/27/11 P. v. Virag CA2/2




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BENEDEK SANDOR VIRAG, Defendant and Appellant.

B216444 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA104708)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Thomas I. McKnew, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Kelly Lynn Babineau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Benedek Sandor Virag (Virag) was convicted on two counts of robbery. On appeal, he contends that the trial court should not have imposed two enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2).[1] He theorizes that the second enhancement should have been stayed pursuant to section 654.
We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
Virag and an accomplice robbed a Brinks armored truck at gunpoint while it was parked in front of a bank and stole over $278,000. There were two victims, the driver of the truck and a messenger.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office filed an information against Virag that charged him with two counts of second degree robbery in violation of section 211. The information contained the following enhancement allegations: the offenses were violent felonies within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c); the offenses were serious felonies within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c); Virag personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (e)(1); during the commission of the offenses, Virag was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1); and, with the intent to do so, Virag took, damaged and destroyed property exceeding $200,000 within the meaning of section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(2).[2]
The case proceeded to trial. A jury found Virag guilty on both counts and found all the enhancement allegations to be true.
In the People's sentencing memo, the prosecutor argued, inter alia, that section 654 was inapplicable based on the multiple victim exception set forth in People v. Hall (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1084 (Hall).
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court discussed section 654 and stated: â€