The People v. Herbert Charles Miller
18 Cal. 3d 873, 558 P.2d 552, 135 Cal. Rptr. 654 (1977)
Rule of Law:
Penal Code § 654, which prohibits multiple punishments for a single act or an indivisible course of conduct, does not preclude separate punishments for multiple crimes of violence committed against different victims during that single transaction. Additionally, for a sentence enhancement based on inflicting great bodily injury upon a "victim" of a specific crime, the charging document must expressly allege that the injured person was a victim of that particular crime.
Facts:
- Herbert Charles Miller and an accomplice entered a jewelry store during business hours with the intent to rob it.
- The accomplice engaged a salesperson, John Keating, by asking to see some watches.
- Miller approached a non-uniformed security guard, Charles Burk, announced a holdup, and attempted to draw a gun.
- A struggle ensued between Miller and Burk, during which both men fell to the floor.
- While Burk was on the floor, Miller shot him once in the chest and, as Burk fell back, a second time in the arm.
- Simultaneously, the accomplice produced a gun, ordered Keating to the floor, and threatened him.
- Miller then broke into display cases, and he and his accomplice stole jewelry with a retail value of approximately $441,000 before fleeing.
Procedural Posture:
- Herbert Charles Miller was charged by information in a trial court with first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon.
- The information included allegations for sentence enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury and using a firearm in the commission of each offense.
- A jury found Miller guilty on all counts and found all enhancement allegations to be true.
- The trial court sentenced Miller to state prison for all three convictions, ordering the robbery and burglary sentences to be 'merged' and the assault sentence to run concurrently.
- Miller appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
- The California Supreme Court granted Miller's petition for hearing, nullifying the proceedings in the intermediate appellate court.
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 Penal Code § 654 prohibit multiple punishments for robbery, burglary, and assault when these crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single criminal objective but involve acts of violence against different victims?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, C. J.
No. Penal Code § 654 does not prohibit multiple punishments for violent crimes committed against different victims during a single, indivisible course of conduct. Although defendant entertained a single criminal objective—to steal jewelry—he committed separate acts of violence against distinct victims. The robbery of John Keating, who was threatened at gunpoint, was a crime of violence against one victim. The aggravated burglary, which involved the intentional infliction of great bodily injury upon Charles Burk, was a separate crime of violence against a second victim. Because there were multiple victims of violent crimes, defendant may be punished for both the robbery and the aggravated burglary. However, the sentence for the assault on Burk must be stayed, as it involved the same act and the same victim as the aggravated burglary. The court also struck the great bodily injury enhancement for the robbery count because the information failed to allege that Burk, the injured party, was a victim of the robbery as required by statute.
Concurrence - Richardson, J. and Clark, J.
No. Concurring with the majority's conclusion regarding Penal Code § 654, Justice Richardson concurred in the judgment under the compulsion of precedent regarding the firearm enhancement. Justice Clark also concurred with the majority's reasoning on the § 654 issue but dissented from the portion of the judgment that limited the firearm use enhancement to a single term, based on his reasoning in a prior dissenting opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'multiple victim' exception to California's statutory prohibition against multiple punishments (Penal Code § 654). It establishes that a defendant can be sentenced for multiple violent offenses arising from one transaction if those offenses harmed different individuals, reinforcing that punishment should be commensurate with the number of people victimized. The decision also serves as a crucial reminder to prosecutors about the need for precise pleading; the failure to specifically allege in the information that the injured party was a 'victim' of the robbery precluded a significant sentence enhancement. This holding underscores the importance of both substantive legal exceptions and procedural exactitude in criminal sentencing.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: The People v. Herbert Charles Miller (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"