(a)A person who is convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (e) and who has been convicted previously of any of those offenses shall receive a five-year enhancement for each of those prior convictions.
(b)A person who is convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (e) and who has served two or more prior prison terms as defined in Section 667.5 for any of those offenses shall receive a 10-year enhancement for each of those prior terms.
(c)In lieu of the term provided in Section 1170.1, a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion. A term may be imposed
consecutively pursuant to this subdivision if a person is convicted of at least one offense specified in subdivision (e). If the term is imposed consecutively pursuant to this subdivision, it shall be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, and shall commence from the time the person otherwise would have been released from imprisonment. The term shall not be included in any determination pursuant to Section 1170.1. Any other term imposed subsequent to that term shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person otherwise would have been released from prison.
(d)(1) A full, separate, and consecutive term shall be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve separate victims or involve the same victim on separate occasions.
(2) In determining whether crimes against a single
victim were committed on separate occasions under this subdivision, the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon the defendant’s actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether or not the defendant lost or abandoned the opportunity to attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.
(3) The term shall be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment and shall commence from the time the person otherwise would have been released from imprisonment. The term shall not be included in any determination pursuant to Section 1170.1. Any other term imposed subsequent to that term shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person otherwise would have been released from
prison.
(e)This section shall apply to the following offenses:
(1)Rape, in violation of paragraph (2), (3), (6), or (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
(2)Rape, in violation of paragraph (1), (4), or (5) of subdivision (a) of former Section 262.
(3)Rape or sexual penetration, in concert, in violation of Section 264.1.
(4)Sodomy, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d) or (k), of Section 286.
(5)Lewd or lascivious act, in violation of subdivision (b) of Section 288.
(6)Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation
of Section 288.5.
(7)Oral copulation, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d) or (k), of Section 287 or of former Section 288a.
(8)Sexual penetration, in violation of subdivision (a) or (g) of Section 289.
(9)As a present offense under subdivision (c) or (d), assault with intent to commit a specified sexual offense, in violation of Section 220.
(10)As a prior conviction under subdivision (a) or (b), an offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of an offense specified in this subdivision.
(f)In addition to any enhancement imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), the court may also impose a fine not to exceed
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for anyone sentenced under those provisions. The fine imposed and collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund to be available for appropriation to fund child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse victim counseling centers and prevention programs established pursuant to Section 13837. If the court orders a fine to be imposed pursuant to this subdivision, the actual administrative cost of collecting that fine, not to exceed 2 percent of the total amount paid, may be paid into the general fund of the county treasury for the use and benefit of the county.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti), 44 P.3d 949 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “[2] I note that since petitioner committed his offenses, the Legislature, through a variety of statutory amendments, has considerably increased the punishment for multiple sex crimes, including sexually violent offenses, so that individuals convicted of such multiple offenses…”
People v. Lawrence, 6 P.3d 228 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 2× “) "Separate occasion" presents itself, perhaps most prominently, in a rule of full, separate, and consecutive sentencing laid down by statute for a perpetrator convicted of multiple felonies entailing "sexually assaultive behavior," as specified (Pen. Code, § 667.6, subd. (d)) …”
People v. Leung, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 667.6.) The Legislature's view, expressed in Penal Code section 667.”
People v. Craft, 715 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1986).
“When a perpetrator commits sex offenses against the same victim on “separate occasions,” Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) (hereafter subdivision (d)), 1 requires the imposition of full, separate, and consecutive terms of imprisonment.”
People v. Lewis, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “) For such persons, Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (a) authorizes five-year enhancements for each prior conviction of the same offense, without requiring that such convictions be based upon charges separately brought and tried.”
People v. Glass, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “(Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d).”
People v. Reynolds, 154 Cal. App. 3d 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code Section 667.6, Subdivision (c) Violates Constitutional Guarantees of Equal Protection by the Absence of Uniform Sentencing Criteria for Its Imposition Our discussion under heading “VII,” wherein we recited appellate and supreme court rulings in People v.”
People v. Jovan B., 863 P.2d 673 (Cal. 1993).
“The Kirk court stressed that when the consecutive-sentence scheme was adopted, the statutes to which it referred included forcible or coercive crimes exclusively; only later was section 289 amended to create certain offenses, such as digital penetration of a victim under 14 and…”
People v. Karsai, 131 Cal. App. 3d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
“1, subdivision (b) of Section 288, Section 289, or of committing sodomy or oral copulation in violation of Section 286 or 288a by force, violence, duress, menace or threat of great bodily harm who has been convicted previously of any such offense shall receive a five-year…”
People v. Preciado, 116 Cal. App. 3d 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “By requiring a full, separate, and consecutive term for each rape, Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) attempts to “provide increased punishment in cases of greater culpability based upon injury to the victims and society.”
People v. Reber, 177 Cal. App. 3d 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
“3 Penal Code section 667.6 was recently amended to conform its requirements to those of Penal Code section 288a, subdivisions (c) and (d) (Stats.”
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “01; (11) the trial court violated his right to due process by refusing to give jury instructions on his theory of the defense; (12) he was improperly sentenced to three upper terms without a jury finding of aggravated facts; (13) the trial court abused its discretion when it…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(C) — 1 case
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
“01; (11) the trial court violated his right to due process by refusing to give jury instructions on his theory of the defense; (12) he was improperly sentenced to three upper terms without a jury finding of aggravated facts; (13) the trial court abused its discretion when it…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(a) — 1 case
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(c) — 4 cases
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
“01; (11) the trial court violated his right to due process by refusing to give jury instructions on his theory of the defense; (12) he was improperly sentenced to three upper terms without a jury finding of aggravated facts; (13) the trial court abused its discretion when it…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(c)(21) — 1 case
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(d) — 5 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(d)(1) — 2 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 667.6(d)(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.