P. v. Soto
Defendant was convicted of several crimes arising from a home invasion robbery. On appeal, defendant contends (1) his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice was violated when the trial court refused to allow him to substitute a fourth attorney on the eve of trial; (2) his sentence to consecutive terms for all the counts of conviction violated the prohibition against dual punishment (Pen. Code, 654); and (3), the court improperly sentenced defendant to the middle term of six years, doubled, on the robbery count, where a six-year term which may only be imposed where the robbery was committed in concert with two or more other persons. (Pen. Code, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
The People agree that the sentence for the false imprisonment count should have been stayed, and concede that the court erroneously imposed the term for robbery in concert where the current offense did not involve two or more other persons. Court agree that one of the consecutive sentences resulted in dual punishment, although Court are of the opinion that the criminal threats count should have been stayed, not the false imprisonment count. Court also agree that the sentence for count 1 must be modified, but otherwise Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Soto