"Like many others in the Humboldt Community I watched with great interest the recent Kitchen sentencing. I have nothing but compassion for the victims and their family members. Of course one of the hardest aspects of the case to grasp is that one family member of a victim was the Defendant in the case.
One aspect of the case that needs to be looked at carefully is that both victims deserve justice. Punishment should be meted out to account for the fact that their were two victims and not one.
Once John published the minutes from the sentencing, I wanted to see how the sentencing was broken down.
Due to the exact number of 8 years, I had a suspicion that Ms. Kitchen was only sentenced for one count and as such only one victim truly received justice. The way the case was charged was typical in that since their were two victims then the charge of Vehicular Manslaughter was actually charged twice. One count for Victim One, and another Count for Victim Two.
Now other legal analysts had noted that PC 654 would have some relevance in this case. This section limits extra punishment when a single act can violate multiple code sections. The law states you can be convicted of multiple code sections, but you are only sentenced for the one act by the section that hands out the most serious punishment.
In layman’s terms, you can be convicted of both Burglary of a residence and theft, but you would be sentenced for the burglary and the theft conviction sentence would be stayed.
There is one huge exception to this rule and that is where there are two victims. The Kitchen case had two victims.
A close look at the sentence reveals that the Defendant received her entire 8 years from Count 1. That only accounted for one victim. If you look at the minutes, it specifically reflects that she was convicted of Count 2. (She was convicted of all charges but by a guilty plea to the entire Information.) Count 2 was identical to Count 1 in its legal language but it applied to the second Victim. The language of this Count stated that the sentence was stayed pursuant to the aforementioned 654 section.
The special allegations were just dismissed by the Court pursuant to its broad authority to do so even though the Defendant admitted to everything.
As for the staying of the sentence, pursuant to PC 654, the Court referenced a case called People v. Calles. Years ago a colleague of mine defended a gentleman in a murder case in Amador County where a father drove his truck off the side of a road intentionally killing his 2 young children. He was convicted and received a sentence of 50 Years to Life. My friend argued at sentencing that 654 should require a sentence of only 25-Life. The Court rejected that and specifically said that case law does not allow that because there were two victims even though there was one act that killed both. Other than the murder charge, a case eerily similar to the Kitchen case.
Here is a link to the Court of Appeals case in Calles. Specifically cited by the Court. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/
“Pursuant to section 654, subdivision (a), the trial court stayed execution of sentence on count 1, the gross vehicular manslaughter of Rocha. In doing so, the trial court erred.
Section 654, subdivision (a) provides, “An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.” (See People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350,. 357; People v. Mesa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 191, 195.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “We have long held that ‘the limitations of section 654 do not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims.’ [Citation.] As we have explained: ‘The purpose of the protection against multiple punishment is to insure that the defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his criminal liability. A defendant who commits an act of violence with the intent to harm more than one person or by a means likely to cause harm to several persons is more culpable than a defendant who harms only one person.
For example, a defendant who chooses a means of murder that places a planeload of passengers in danger, or results in injury to many persons, is properly subject to greater punishment than a defendant who chooses a means that harms only a single person. This distinction between an act of violence against the person that violates more than one statute and such an act that harms more than one person is well settled. Section 654 is not “․ applicable where ․ one act has two results each of which is an act of violence against the person of a separate individual.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Oates (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1048, 1063; see People v. Shaw (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 453, 459; People v. Pantoja (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1, 16.)”
So the Court absolutely got it wrong by denying punishment for the second victim in this case. Those community members who have spoken out on social media about the leniency of the sentence were correct in one part that the Court was required to give out more time to account for both victims.
Fortunately there is something that can be done about this. All the DAs office has to do is to file a Notice of Appeal of the sentence and then the CA Attorney General’s Office will work to have this obvious sentence error corrected.
For all those that would like to see that happen, I strongly encourage the DA’s office to take that step.
Justice for both victims must be obtained. Errors by the Court must be corrected.
The DA’s office has 60 days from September 18 to file that Notice."
This legal analysis is by former Deputy District Attorney, former Humboldt criminal defense attorney and California attorney, Mr. Allan Dollison.
Previous post:
Related post:
Good Job Allan
ReplyDelete👍 Mr. Dollison.
ReplyDeleteIs it because it wasn't intentional? Not a planned murder. It's frustrating, for sure.
ReplyDeleteTo hear only 1 year for addition victim blew my mind