(a)When a person is convicted of two or more crimes, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same judge or by different judges, the second or other subsequent judgment upon which sentence is ordered to be executed shall direct whether the terms of imprisonment or any of them to which he or she is sentenced shall run concurrently or consecutively. Life sentences, whether with or without the possibility of parole, may be imposed to run consecutively with one another, with any term imposed for applicable enhancements, or with any other term of imprisonment for a felony conviction. Whenever a person is committed to prison on a life sentence which is ordered to run
consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term of imprisonment shall be served first and no part thereof shall be credited toward the person’s eligibility for parole as calculated pursuant to Section 3046 or pursuant to any other section of law that establishes a minimum period of confinement under the life sentence before eligibility for parole.
(b)In the event that the court at the time of pronouncing the second or other judgment upon that person had no knowledge of a prior existing judgment or judgments, or having knowledge, fails to determine how the terms of imprisonment shall run in relation to each other, then, upon that failure to determine, or upon that prior judgment or judgments being brought to the attention of the court at any time prior to the expiration of 60 days from and after the actual commencement of imprisonment upon the second or other subsequent judgments, the court shall, in the absence of
the defendant and within 60 days of the notice, determine how the term of imprisonment upon the second or other subsequent judgment shall run with reference to the prior incompleted term or terms of imprisonment. Upon the failure of the court to determine how the terms of imprisonment on the second or subsequent judgment shall run, the term of imprisonment on the second or subsequent judgment shall run concurrently.
(c)The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall advise the court pronouncing the second or other subsequent judgment of the existence of all prior judgments against the defendant, the terms of imprisonment of which have not been completely served.
(d)When a court imposes a concurrent term of imprisonment and imprisonment for one of the crimes is required to be served in the state prison, the term for all crimes shall be served in the state prison, even if
the term for any other offense specifies imprisonment in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Bradford, 549 P.2d 1225 (Cal. 1976).
· cites it 2× “[4] This sentence, being consecutive to the Los Angeles sentences, increased defendant's aggregate minimum sentence to 20 years. *20 Defendant contends that the court abused its discretion by ordering the sentences imposed in this proceeding to run consecutively to sentences…”
People v. Downey, 82 Cal. App. 4th 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code section 669 provides, in pertinent part, “When any person is convicted of two or more crimes, whether in the same proceeding or court or *913 in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same judge or by different judges, the second or…”
People v. Edwards, 117 Cal. App. 3d 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “VI Penal Code Section 669 Appellant points out that the sentencing court did not expressly state that the robbery conviction in information No.”
In re Stoneroad, 215 Cal. App. 4th 596 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “‖ As we will discuss, petitioner murdered Kane and attempted 2 Penal Code section 669, subdivision (a), provides that where, as in this case, a person is convicted of two or more offenses and sentenced to both determinate and indeterminate terms, and such terms are ordered to…”
Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n, 799 P.2d 1220 (Cal. 1990).
· cites it 2× “As amended, Penal Code section 669 provided that when a person was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for two or more crimes, and one of the terms was for life, the other term or terms were to merge and run concurrently with the life term.”
In re Sandel, 412 P.2d 806 (Cal. 1966).
· cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, §669.) It is true that where, as here, the second conviction is for the crime of escape from a state prison, the Legislature has made it mandatory that the terms be consecutive (former Pen.”
People v. Henderson, 386 P.2d 677 (Cal. 1963).
· cites it 2× “When a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses at the same trial and the judgment directs that the sentences shall be served concurrently (Pen. Code, § 669), the trial judge on new convictions of the same offenses after reversal may direct that the same sentences shall be…”
People v. Giminez, 534 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1975).
· cites it 2× “[4] Defendant again refused conditional probation and the trial judge then proceeded to impose a consecutive sentence for the term prescribed by law. [5] Defendant now contends that imposition of a consecutive sentence under these circumstances constituted an abuse of discretion.”
People v. Leach, 541 P.2d 296 (Cal. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Code, § 190) and concurrently (Pen. Code, § 669) to the prescribed five-years-to-life term for first degree robbery (Pen.”
People v. White, 549 P.2d 537 (Cal. 1976).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 669; People v. Morris, 20 Cal.”
People v. Mathews, 102 Cal. App. 3d 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Appellant, then, was ordered to serve the subject three-year term consecutive to the unserved portion of his earlier sentence (Pen. Code, § 669), and further ordered to serve an additional consecutive one-year sentence based upon his having had a prior prison term.”
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.