Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Charles Jude Leflet of vandalism causing more than $400 in damage, driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher. Leflet admitted two prior strikes. The trial court denied his motions to dismiss the strikes and to reduce the vandalism count to a misdemeanor, then sentenced him to the low term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months under the Three Strikes law, on the vandalism count, plus 180 days on each DUI count to be served concurrently to each other and count 1.
The charges arose from an evening in September 2024, when a witness saw a car doing donuts in a busy parking lot, called 911, filmed a short video, and took a photograph of the car before it left the lot. She later spotted the car at a gas station while driving home and called 911 again. Officers stopped a second car in which Leflet was a passenger; he appeared inebriated, smelled of alcohol, and admitted drinking. He declined to perform field sobriety tests, take a breath test, or allow a blood draw, but a warrant-authorized blood draw showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.147 percent. At trial the witness identified Leflet as the driver, and a repair estimator put the cost of removing the skid marks at roughly $5,000 on the low end.
The Court’s Holding
On the section 654 issue, the court accepted the People's concession that counts 2 and 3 punished the same act of driving under the influence, so only one punishment could stand. Because the trial court had imposed concurrent sentences rather than staying one, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to stay execution of the sentence on count 2, affirmed the judgment as modified, and remanded with directions for the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The court rejected Leflet's argument that the vandalism count should have been reduced to a misdemeanor under section 17(b). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court found the trial court reasonably evaluated relevant factors, including the nature of the offense and Leflet's criminal history. The trial court concluded reduction was unwarranted based on Leflet's extensive record, noting that the circumstances in mitigation and aggravation were equal. Although no one was injured, doing donuts in a busy parking lot while intoxicated had the potential to seriously injure bystanders or property, and the appellate court would not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment.
The court also upheld the denial of Leflet's motion to dismiss his prior strikes. It found the trial court properly considered Leflet's lengthy and violent criminal history, including juvenile convictions, three separate 1999 assaults with a firearm that produced his first strike, and a 2014 stabbing in which Leflet stabbed someone in the chest that produced his second. The court rejected Leflet's claims that the trial court mischaracterized a 1994 juvenile adjudication or treated a 1998 conviction as multiple strikes, finding no support in the record. Leflet therefore failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required for strike dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- Concurrent sentences do not satisfy Penal Code section 654; when two convictions punish the same act, the court must stay execution of one sentence, and the appellate court will modify the judgment to do so.
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying section 17(b) wobbler reduction where it reasonably weighs the offense's dangerous potential and the defendant's criminal history, even if no actual injury occurred.
- Dismissing prior strikes under the Three Strikes law requires extraordinary circumstances, and a defendant with a long, violent record will rarely show the trial court abused its discretion by refusing.
- Appellate courts will not reweigh sentencing factors or substitute their judgment for the trial court's on discretionary sentencing decisions.
- A sentencing court's awareness of a prior conviction's violent facts does not show it treated that conviction as something it was not, absent affirmative record support.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the mechanical difference between concurrent sentencing and a section 654 stay: even where sentences run together, the law requires the affected term to be formally stayed, and appellate courts will correct the error by modification and remand for an amended abstract of judgment. It also confirms that the People's concession on a section 654 issue can streamline resolution.
More broadly, the decision shows how deferential abuse-of-discretion review protects sentencing choices on wobbler reduction and strike dismissal. Leflet failed to carry his burden to show the trial court abused its discretion in concluding he fell within the spirit of the Three Strikes law and denying his motion to dismiss his prior strikes.