JUDGES GIVEN DISCRETION ON CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

In a decision that could affect hundreds of cases throughout the state, the
California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a defendant with more than one
conviction for a single crime does not have to receive consecutive sentences
under the three-strikes law. By a unanimous vote, the high court ruled in
favor of a Los Angeles man who had been sentenced to 111 years in prison for
robbing four people at a furniture store.

The trial judge had sentenced David Deloza to four consecutive 25-year terms
for each victim, plus an additional 11 years for the crime itself.

But in yesterday's decision, the high court rejected the state's argument
that the three-strikes law required consecutive sentences when there is more
than one victim.

The ruling settles an issue that has divided the state appellate courts and
created confusion for trial judges.

As long as the crimes are committed on a ``single occasion,'' depending on
the proximity in time and place, a defendant does not have to be subjected
to consecutive sentences, wrote Justice Janice Rogers Brown in the court's
decision.

The court said it was up to the trial judge to decide whether the sentences
should be concurrent. The justices ordered a new sentencing hearing for Deloza.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers said the decision will ease the backlog of
cases that have been put on hold pending a decision from the California
Supreme Court. Los Angeles alone has dozens of cases awaiting final
resolution, they said.

Los Angeles attorney Gary Mandinach, who represented Deloza, said he expects
many defendants who have been sentenced under the three-strikes law to
request reduced sentences relying on yesterday's decision.

``It's going to affect a number of cases,'' the defense lawyer said.

The ruling is consistent with the high court's 1996 decision allowing trial
judges to toss out prior three-strikes convictions if they feel it is just.

``This is simply giving power to judges,'' said Frank Zimring, who teaches
criminal law at the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law in
Berkeley.

Deputy Attorney General Alan Tate said he did not expect many judges to
change their minds, however, and reduce the sentences of repeat offenders.

``Unfortunately,'' Tate said, ``this defendant has earned 111 years in prison.''

Deloza had been convicted of robbing at gunpoint three employees and a
customer at a furniture store in Highland Park in 1995.

The crime was captured on videotape, and Deloza was positively identified by
all four victims.

The trial judge sentenced him to 111 years in prison, a ruling upheld by a
state appeals court.

In reversing that decision, the high court said Deloza committed all his
robberies at one place and in a short period of time.

``Given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the defendant's crimes
against the same group of victims,'' Brown wrote in the court opinion,
``they were clearly committed on the `same occasion.' ''

In a separate opinion, Justice Stanley Mosk said a 111-prison sentence
amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

He noted a recent case in Oklahoma in which the court upheld a 30,000-year
sentence against a defendant.

``What is the legal difference between prison sentences of 30,000 years and
111 years? The answer is: None,'' he wrote. ``Both are impossible for a
human being to serve.''

``A grossly excessive sentence can serve no rational legislative purpose,''
he said.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett