People v. Scott
9 Cal. 4th 331, 885 P.2d 1040, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's failure to object to the trial court's discretionary sentencing choices and statement of reasons at the time of sentencing waives such claims on appeal. Separately, each distinct lewd act committed against a child during a single encounter constitutes a separate, convictable offense under Penal Code § 288.
Facts:
- Clifford Albert Scott lived with his girlfriend, Susan, and her 11-year-old daughter, Latoya.
- Over a seven-month period from July 1990 to January 1991, while Latoya's mother was often absent, Scott repeatedly molested Latoya.
- During each of approximately ten sexual encounters, Scott had sexual intercourse with Latoya.
- On at least two of these occasions, Scott also fondled Latoya's breasts, buttocks, and genitals in addition to committing sexual intercourse.
- On at least two other occasions, Scott orally copulated Latoya in addition to having intercourse with her.
- After the third incident, Scott threatened to kill Latoya and her family if she ever disclosed the abuse.
- Following the final incident, Latoya's mother discovered Scott and Latoya sleeping together and contacted the police.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged Clifford Albert Scott in a state trial court with 14 counts of lewd conduct.
- A jury convicted Scott on all 14 counts as charged.
- At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 44-year prison term, articulating reasons for the upper term and consecutive sentences; Scott's counsel did not object to these reasons.
- Scott, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal struck two of Scott's convictions (for fondling), finding the acts were 'indivisible' from the sexual intercourse that occurred on the same occasions.
- The Court of Appeal also found that Scott had waived his challenges to the trial court's sentencing reasons by failing to object at the hearing.
- Scott petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the waiver issue, and the People sought review of the reversal of the two convictions; the state's highest court granted review.
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 a defendant waive the right to challenge the trial court's reasons for its discretionary sentencing choices on appeal by failing to object at the time of sentencing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baxter
Yes. A defendant waives claims of error regarding the trial court's discretionary sentencing choices, including its statement of reasons, by failing to raise a timely objection at the sentencing hearing. The court reasoned that this waiver rule promotes judicial economy by encouraging the prompt detection and correction of errors at the trial level, where they are most easily remedied. Such claims are distinguishable from 'unauthorized sentences'—which are illegal under any circumstances and can be challenged at any time—because they involve sentences that are legally permitted but imposed in a factually or procedurally flawed manner. The court also held that each distinct lewd act against a child victim, such as fondling and intercourse, can support a separate conviction under Penal Code § 288 because each act constitutes a 'new and separate' outrage to the victim. However, because the waiver rule on sentencing claims was a significant departure from the prevailing view, the court held that it would apply only prospectively to sentencing hearings conducted after this decision became final.
Concurring and dissenting - Justice Kennard
Justice Kennard concurred in the judgment, agreeing that Scott's claims were not waived and his fondling convictions should be reinstated, but dissented from the majority's creation of a new waiver rule for future cases. She argued that the new rule is impractical because the complexity of felony sentencing does not afford counsel a meaningful opportunity to identify and object to errors in the court's extemporaneous oral pronouncement of sentence. Justice Kennard suggested that purely legal errors, such as the dual use of a sentencing factor, should remain reviewable on appeal without an objection, distinguishing them from factual errors that can only be resolved at the trial level. Imposing a blanket waiver rule, she contended, would either provide an inadequate opportunity for objection or place an unworkable burden on trial courts to issue tentative written rulings.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant procedural bar in California criminal law, requiring defense counsel to make contemporaneous objections to preserve most sentencing errors for appeal. This 'object or forfeit' rule, known as the 'Scott waiver,' shifted the burden of correcting sentencing errors from appellate courts to trial counsel, demanding greater vigilance during sentencing hearings. The ruling on multiple convictions clarified and strengthened prosecutorial authority by confirming that a defendant can be separately convicted for every distinct sexual act committed during a single assault on a child. By making the new waiver rule prospective, the court acknowledged its significant change to established practice and avoided unfairness to defendants who had relied on the prior rule.
