P. v. Sutton
Defendant Martel Antwone Sutton broke into Jane Does home (the victim) and hit her repeatedly with a frying pan when she discovered him in her home in the middle of the night. Defendant then robbed and raped the victim in her home. When done raping the victim, defendant noticed a shed in the victims backyard, locked her in the shed, and drove off in the victims car. Defendant appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for first degree burglary (count 1; Pen. Code, 459)[1]; assault with a deadly weapon (count 2; 245, subd. (a)(1)); forcible oral copulation (count 3; 288A, subd. (c)(2)); forcible rape (count 4; 261, subd. (a)(2)); false imprisonment (count 6; 236); kidnapping (count 7; 207, subd. (a)); robbery (count 8; 211); and unlawful taking of a vehicle (count 9; Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). The jury acquitted defendant of count 5, attempted forcible sodomy ( 286, subd. (c)(2), 664). As to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, the jury found true that defendant used a deadly weapon (i.e., a frying pan) and found true as to all convicted offenses that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI). ( 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a), and 12022.8.) The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 22 years 4 months plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life. Court agree, as do the People, that the trial court erred in imposing the weapon use enhancement as to count 2 (assault with a deadly weapon) and the GBI enhancement as to count 4 (rape), and accordingly, direct the trial court to strike these enhancements. The trial court also erred in imposing upper terms on counts 1, 3 and 7, based on factors requiring a jury trial under Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S.[127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Defendants sentence is thus reversed and the matter is remanded for resentencing as to counts 1, 3 and 7. In all other regards, Court reject defendants contentions and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Sutton