Sep 17, 2018
Will PC 654 impact Marci Kitchen's sentencing tomorrow?
Sentencing for Marci Kitchen is scheduled for tomorrow in Courtroom 1 at 8:30 a.m.
There is one California Penal Code that can impact Marci Kitchen 's sentence. That Penal Code is PC 654.
Penal Code 654 means you can't be punished twice for the same act in California.
From Justia, Find Law:
(a) 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. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a defendant sentenced pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be granted probation if any of the provisions that would otherwise apply to the defendant prohibits the granting of probation."
If you have not kept up with recent posts, listed below are the charges Marci Kitchen pleaded guilty to, links to recent posts on this blog (which include analysis on sentencing) and Judge Kaleb Cockrum's remarks the day he accepted the plea.
Charges Marci Kitchen pleaded guilty to:
Count 1 is vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence while being intoxicated (Jane Doe 1) ; Count 1 has two special allegations: fleeing the crime scene and multiple victims.
Count 2 is vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence while being intoxicated
(Jane Doe 2)
Count 3 is DUI; Alcohol while causing injury with two special allegations: great bodily injury resulting in brain injury and paralysis and multiple victims.
Count 4 is Hit and Run with Injury/Death.
When Marci Kitchen entered her plea on August 30, the special allegation in Count 3 was amended to 12022.7 (a).
After my August 20 post, I reached out to Deputy District Attorney Stacey Eads to get more clarification on that special allegation.
"One of the Great Bodily Injury allegations attached to count 3 (VC 23153(a)) was amended from 12022.7(b) to 12022.7(a). This was for the GBI to Faith." Ms. Eads told me. "The evidence would not have proven the 12022.7(b) allegation because we would have to prove that for a period of time that she was comatose or paralyzed. Somewhat counter intuitive that we’re left with the enhancement that carries a lower term only because she was deceased at the scene. Investigation, evidence, extensive legal research and consultation with expert left us with the only legal option being to modify. "
On August 20, according to Judge Cockrum, Marci Kitchen faces either 11 years which is what the prosecution wants or 10 years 1 month which is what the defense wants. It is a "point of contention"said Judge Cockrum.
The mid term cap of two years, agreed as part of the conditional plea, does not apply to all counts and special allegations. If Judge Cockrum decides to sentence her to the maximum, Marci Kitchen can refuse the plea deal and the case can proceed to a jury trial.
Recent posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/09/another-funding-order-granted-for-marci.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/09/marci-kitchen-housed-in-unit-377-of.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/09/marci-kitchen-brought-into-courtroom.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/09/marci-kitchen-booked-into-humboldt.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/08/protest-planned-outside-courthouse-on.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/08/joe-kitchen-stephanie-baldwin-and-jeff.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/08/so-hank-thinks-his-reporter-knows-more.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/08/judge-denies-peoples-request-to-remand.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-marci-kitchen-change-of-plea-has.html?m=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Consider the case of Manuel Garcia (google Manuel Garcia 7/22) in Southern California. The DUI driver has been charged with multiple counts of murder as well as multiple counts of gross vehicular manslaughter; one for each victim.
ReplyDeleteDid a quick search. The charges in that case are not the same and he had a prior criminal record. His case is nowhere near the sentencing phase.
Delete