The People v. Greg Acosta
124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 435 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant with two prior strikes is convicted of a felony that also qualifies for sentencing under the One Strike law, the Three Strikes law requires the minimum parole ineligibility period of the One Strike law to be tripled. The same prior conviction may be used simultaneously to qualify the defendant for the One Strike law, to count as a strike under the Three Strikes law, and to impose a separate sentence enhancement.
Facts:
- Greg Acosta had prior felony convictions for rape in concert and forcible rape.
- Acosta subsequently committed and was convicted of forcible oral copulation.
- David Lewis Cornelius had prior felony convictions for assault with intent to commit forcible rape and attempted robbery.
- Cornelius subsequently committed multiple forcible sex offenses, including rape, sodomy, and oral copulation, against a single victim whom he had kidnapped.
- The kidnapping of Cornelius's victim substantially increased the risk of harm to her beyond that inherent in the underlying sex offenses.
Procedural Posture:
- In separate cases, juries in trial courts convicted Greg Acosta and David Lewis Cornelius of forcible sex offenses.
- The trial courts found that both men had two prior serious felony convictions, qualifying them as third-strike offenders, and sentenced them to lengthy life terms by tripling the 25-year minimum sentence from the One Strike law.
- Acosta, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction but reduced his sentence, finding one prior conviction was 'consumed' by the One Strike law.
- Cornelius, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed his sentence in its entirety.
- Both the People and Acosta petitioned for review in Acosta's case, and Cornelius petitioned for review in his case, to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's Three Strikes law require the tripling of the minimum parole ineligibility term established by the One Strike law, and may the same prior conviction be used to trigger the One Strike law, serve as a strike, and be the basis for a five-year sentence enhancement?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, the Three Strikes law requires tripling the minimum term of the One Strike law, and a single prior conviction can be used for multiple sentencing purposes. The court's reasoning is based on statutory construction. First, the language of the Three Strikes law's tripling provision for third-strike offenders is substantially similar to the doubling provision for second-strike offenders, which the court in People v. Jefferson interpreted to apply to minimum parole ineligibility terms. Second, the Three Strikes law explicitly states it applies '[n]otwithstanding any other law' and 'in every case' involving a defendant with prior strikes, indicating its precedence over other sentencing schemes. Third, the One Strike law is an alternative sentencing scheme, not a mere enhancement, and its term represents the 'punishment otherwise provided' that is to be tripled under the Three Strikes law. Finally, using a single prior conviction for multiple purposes (as a strike, to trigger the One Strike law, and for an enhancement) is consistent with the legislative intent to punish recidivism severely, as established in People v. Dotson.
Dissenting - George, C.J.
No, a single prior conviction cannot be used for multiple sentencing purposes in this context. The majority's holding contravenes the plain language of the One Strike law at Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (f), which states that a triggering circumstance (like a prior conviction) 'shall be used as the basis for imposing the term provided in [the One Strike law] rather than being used to impose the punishment authorized under any other law.' The majority's interpretation that the sentence is imposed 'only' under the Three Strikes law by 'reference' to the One Strike law is an 'artificial formalism' that drains the meaning from this explicit statutory limitation. The Legislature intended for the circumstance to be used for one purpose or the other, not both simultaneously.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, the trial court's triple use of Acosta's prior convictions was improper. Section 667.61(f) of the One Strike law prohibits using a defendant's prior convictions to increase a sentence under that law and 'any other law.' The court must determine which law provides the 'greater penalty' and apply that one. Here, the proper sentence should have been calculated by using one prior conviction to trigger the 25-year-to-life term under the One Strike law, and the second prior conviction to double that term under the Three Strikes law (as a second-strike) and add a five-year enhancement, resulting in a 55-year-to-life sentence, not 85.
Dissenting - Werdegar, J.
No, the majority errs on two points. First, the tripling provision for third-strike offenders is linguistically different from the doubling provision for second-strike offenders; it does not contain language directing courts to multiply the 'minimum term for an indeterminate term,' and the court should not add words the Legislature omitted. Second, like the other dissents, this opinion concludes that Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (f) plainly forbids reusing a factual circumstance that has already been used to qualify a defendant for sentencing under the One Strike law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the primacy of the Three Strikes law over other alternative sentencing schemes in California. It establishes that specialized statutes like the One Strike law do not operate in a vacuum but are instead incorporated into the Three Strikes framework as the baseline for calculating an even harsher sentence. The ruling confirms a powerful 'piling on' effect, where a single past act—a prior conviction—can be used repeatedly in the same sentencing hearing to trigger different statutes and enhancements. This significantly enhances prosecutorial leverage and ensures that recidivist offenders who commit aggravated sex crimes face sentences that are effectively life without parole.
Unlock the full brief for The People v. Greg Acosta