People v. Garcia

Citations: 211 Cal. App. 3d 1096; 260 Cal. Rptr. 71; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 655Docket: D008206

Court: California Court of Appeal; June 26, 1989; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eduardo Echeveria Garcia appealed his judgment and sentence of eight years imposed by the trial court, arguing that it constituted an illegal sentence violating the "double-the-base-term" provision of Penal Code section 1170.1(g) and the ex post facto laws of the U.S. and California Constitutions. The court found the application of a three-year enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2(a) appropriate, ruling that it did not breach the double-the-base-term limitation or ex post facto principles. 

Garcia was arrested on June 12, 1987, for an outstanding warrant, during which police discovered heroin in his possession. He was charged on February 16, 1988, with unlawful possession of heroin for sale, with allegations of prior convictions. After waiving his right to a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced on May 10, 1988, to a total of eight years, consisting of a three-year midterm for the current offense, a consecutive three-year term for the enhancement under section 11370.2(a), and two consecutive one-year terms for prior felony enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5(b). 

The court noted that at the time of his drug offense, Penal Code section 1170.1(g) restricted the total imprisonment to double the base term unless certain conditions applied, which included the applicability of enhancements under section 11370.2, as amended in 1987 to exclude these enhancements from the limitation. Section 11370.2 mandates a consecutive three-year term for each prior felony conviction related to heroin offenses. The court concluded that Garcia's sentence was lawful under the existing statutes.

Garcia was sentenced to eight years for a violation of section 11351, which included a three-year base term and additional enhancements due to prior convictions. The enhancements included a consecutive three-year term under section 11370.2(a) and two consecutive one-year terms under Penal Code section 667.5(b). Garcia argued that the three-year enhancement under section 11370.2(a) was unconstitutional because it exceeded the twice-the-base-term limitation, claiming an ex post facto violation since the crime occurred before the amendment to Penal Code section 1170.1(g) in 1987, which added section 11370.2 as an exception. He did not contest the one-year enhancements under section 667.5(b).

The court noted that enhancements excluded from the double-the-base-term limitation mean the entire sentence is exempt from this constraint, as established in People v. Magill. Since Garcia did not challenge the enhancements under section 667.5(b) and those were deemed exceptions to the limitation, the three-year enhancement under section 11370.2(a) did not violate the twice-the-base-term rule. The court acknowledged existing conflicting authority regarding the status of section 667.5(b) as an exception and highlighted that the Supreme Court has granted review on this matter. The court's review primarily focused on the applicability of section 11370.2(a) to the limitation.

Section 11370.2(a), enacted alongside section 11370.4 in 1985, aims to impose harsher penalties on individuals involved in the trafficking or production of narcotics, particularly for those with prior convictions. Section 11370.4 allows for significant enhancements based on the quantity of drugs possessed, reinforcing the legislative intent to punish serious offenders more severely than those with minor roles. In the case of People v. Carvajal, the Court of Appeal clarified that enhancements under section 11370.4 were not restricted by the double-the-base-term rule, emphasizing a sensible interpretation that aligns with legislative intent. This reasoning applies to section 11370.2(a), which imposes additional penalties for individuals with prior drug sale convictions. Disallowing the three-year enhancement for these individuals would undermine the purpose of the statute and limit judicial discretion in sentencing, especially regarding multiple prior convictions. Thus, the court's interpretation supports the legislative goal of addressing repeat offenders more stringently.

Support for the decision is drawn from the cases People v. Eddahbi and People v. Hernandez, which clarify that sentences under Penal Code section 1170.1(b) and section 667 are not limited by the double-base-term rule due to legislative oversight. Both cases emphasized the intent behind the statutes and the language of California's Proposition 8, which allows for unlimited use of prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement. 

In the current case, although it doesn't involve a statute enacted concurrently with Proposition 8, it pertains to a statute established afterward that aims to impose harsher penalties on habitual felons. Specifically, under Penal Code section 11370.2(a), an individual like Garcia, convicted of section 11351 with a prior section 11352 conviction, must receive an additional three-year enhancement. Failing to apply this enhancement would contradict the "without limitation" provision of Proposition 8 and the legislative intent of section 11370.2(a).

Furthermore, Penal Code section 1170.1(g) was amended to explicitly exclude enhancements under sections 11370.2 and 11370.4 from the twice-the-base-term rule. The amendment was intended to clarify the Legislature's intent, allowing judges to impose sentences exceeding twice the base term for drug offenders with prior convictions. This amendment is considered declaratory of existing law, not an expansion of exceptions to the double-base-term rule. As a result, there is no ex post facto application of the amended statute, and the three-year enhancement under section 11370.2(a) is valid, affirming the judgment and sentence. The decision was concurred by Kremer, P.J., and Wiener, J. A rehearing petition was denied on July 11, 1989, and the Supreme Court denied a review petition on September 28, 1989.

Penal Code section 667.5(b) is recognized as an exception to the twice-the-base-term limitation established by prior case law, specifically People v. James and People v. Doane. The Supreme Court declined to review People v. Meadows, which contradicted this interpretation, and ordered it unpublished. Additionally, Penal Code section 11370.2 was amended in 1986 to broaden the list of controlled substances eligible for sentencing enhancements. The case of Carvajal was partially published regarding enhancements, but after the Supreme Court's review denial, additional search and seizure issues were also published. The document asserts that courts should not engage in semantic debates regarding the imposition of enhancements versus their total effect on sentencing, emphasizing that while there is a procedural mechanism to stay excessive terms under Penal Code section 1170.1(g), it does not clarify whether section 11370.2(a) is bound by the double-base-term rule.