Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In February 2025, Shubh Patel drove to an address he obtained on the Hinge dating app to meet a woman named Mia. C.B. approached, asked to borrow Patel's cell phone, then produced a firearm and demanded Patel's phone and wallet. After taking those items, C.B. told Patel to take him to his parked vehicle, asked how to open the car door, and asked how to put the car in drive and turn it on. C.B. then ordered Patel to take a few steps back, threatened to shoot him if he went too far, and drove off with the car.
A few days later, Jack Sarduna drove his father's vehicle to an address to meet a woman named Mia on the Hinge dating app. C.B. pulled a gun on Sarduna and said, "give me all your money fool." Sarduna gave C.B. his wallet and phone, and also gave C.B. his car keys after C.B. demanded them. C.B. asked how to open the car, started it, and drove off.
The People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging two counts of carjacking and two counts of second degree robbery, along with personal firearm use enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). After contested evidentiary hearings, the juvenile court sustained the petition on all four counts and found the firearm allegations true. C.B. was declared a ward and placed in a five-to-seven-month camp community placement program. The juvenile court set a maximum term of confinement of 28 years and eight months. C.B. appealed, challenging both the calculation of the maximum term and the inclusion of separate punishment for the robbery counts.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed with C.B. that the juvenile court miscalculated the maximum term of confinement. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (a)(2), a juvenile cannot be committed for a period exceeding the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed on an adult convicted of the same offense. Applying the rules for subordinate terms under Penal Code section 1170.1, the parties agreed the correct maximum was 22 years: 15 years for the principal carjacking count (five-year middle term plus 10-year firearm enhancement), five years for the subordinate carjacking count (one-third of the middle term, or one year eight months, plus one-third of the enhancement, or three years four months), and two years for the two subordinate robbery counts (one-third of the three-year middle term under section 213, subdivision (a)(2) for each count).
The court rejected C.B.'s argument that the robbery counts should have been excluded from punishment under Penal Code section 654, which bars multiple punishment for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Divisibility depends on the defendant's intent and objectives, and punishment for independent violations is permitted when the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives. Here, substantial evidence supported separate objectives: C.B. took wallets and phones that were not necessary to accomplish the carjackings, and after obtaining those items he had time to reflect and renew his intent to steal the vehicles. The juvenile court's findings supported this, noting the robberies were completed when C.B. took the car, keys, and wallet of each victim, and the carjackings occurred afterward when he directed each victim back to their cars and had the victims stand near and direct him how to start and drive the vehicles.
The court modified the judgment to reflect a maximum confinement term of 22 years and otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile's maximum term of confinement cannot exceed the middle term of imprisonment that an adult would face for the same offenses, and subordinate terms are calculated at one-third of the middle term plus one-third of any applicable enhancements.
- Penal Code section 654 does not bar separate punishment for robbery and carjacking when the defendant takes personal items not necessary to the carjacking and has time to form a separate intent to steal the vehicle.
- The People conceded the sentencing calculation error on appeal, and the court modified the maximum term from 28 years and eight months to 22 years.
- A trial court's determination that two crimes involved separate objectives will be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence, even when the crimes occur close in time.
- The juvenile court's factual findings about when the robbery ended and the carjacking began were critical to the section 654 analysis.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates how California courts apply the section 654 multiple-punishment bar in the juvenile context, particularly where a defendant commits robbery and carjacking in a single encounter. Taking personal items beyond what is needed for a carjacking can support a finding of independent criminal objectives, justifying separate punishment.
The case also demonstrates the mechanical rules for calculating a juvenile's maximum confinement term, showing how errors can arise when aggregating principal and subordinate terms with enhancements, and how appellate courts will correct such errors when the parties agree on the proper calculation.