P. v. Bell
A jury convicted Daniel James Bell of assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code,[1] 220; count 1), first degree robbery in an inhabited residence ( 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 213, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and first degree burglary ( 459, 460, subd. (a); count 3). The jury found true allegations Bell burglarized an occupied residence ( 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), and that he had one prior strike under the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (d)-(e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b)-(c)(1)) and one prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)).
Bell contends the trial court committed reversible error by failing to give a unanimity instruction in conjunction with the assault with intent to commit rape charge. In the alternative, he argues the court violated section 654s proscription against double punishment by imposing a consecutive sentence on count 2, first degree robbery, in addition to the sentence imposed on count 1, assault with intent to commit rape. Finally, Bell asserts the trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion by ordering that the sentence in this case run full term and consecutively to the sentence imposed in the Los Angeles County case, and that the court violated the ex post facto clauses of our and federal Constitutions by applying the current version of section 667.6 instead of the version in effect when he committed the crimes. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Bell