Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Arleum Curry of assault with a deadly weapon and battery causing serious bodily injury arising from a stabbing incident. As to both counts, the jury found true allegations that Curry personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a). As to the battery count only, the jury also found he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and found true the aggravating circumstance that Curry engaged in violent conduct in committing the offenses, indicating a serious danger to society.
On October 2, 2025, the trial court selected the battery count as the principal term and sentenced Curry to seven years in prison: the midterm of three years for the substantive offense, three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and one year for the personal use of a deadly weapon allegation. The court imposed and stayed a six-year term on the assault count. Curry appealed, contending the trial court could not lawfully impose the great bodily injury enhancement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed with Curry that the trial court erred in imposing the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement. The statute generally provides sentence enhancements for crimes resulting in infliction of great bodily injury, but subdivision (g) expressly prohibits such an enhancement if infliction of great bodily injury is an element of the offense itself. The court explained that great bodily injury in section 12022.7 and serious bodily injury in the offense of battery causing serious bodily injury are essentially equivalent elements, citing In re Cabrera (2023) 14 Cal.5th 476 and People v. Hawkins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1373. Because great bodily injury is an element of battery causing serious bodily injury, the enhancement could not be imposed.
The Attorney General conceded that remand for resentencing was the proper remedy. Curry argued in his reply brief that remand was unnecessary and asked the court to simply strike the three-year enhancement while leaving intact the midterm and the one-year weapon enhancement. The court declined this request, holding that when part of a sentence is stricken on review, remand for a full resentencing on all counts is appropriate to allow the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. The court cited People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893, and noted that where the trial court has sentencing discretion to choose between upper and midterms in selecting a principal term, remand is required. The court expressly stated no opinion on what sentence should be imposed on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A great bodily injury enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7 cannot be imposed when the underlying offense already includes infliction of great bodily injury as an element, as is the case with battery causing serious bodily injury under section 243, subdivision (d).
- When an appellate court strikes part of a sentence on review, the proper remedy is generally to remand for full resentencing on all counts so the trial court can exercise its discretion in light of the changed circumstances, rather than simply striking the invalid portion and leaving the rest intact.
- The terms great bodily injury in section 12022.7 and serious bodily injury in section 243, subdivision (d) have substantially the same meaning and are treated as essentially equivalent elements for purposes of the statutory prohibition on duplicative enhancements.
- Trial courts retain discretion at resentencing to choose between upper and midterm sentences and to reconsider the entire sentencing scheme when an enhancement is stricken, and appellate courts will not dictate the outcome of that discretionary process.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the statutory limitation in Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (g) that prohibits sentence enhancements for great bodily injury when that injury is already an element of the underlying offense. The ruling clarifies that battery causing serious bodily injury under section 243, subdivision (d) is such an offense because serious bodily injury and great bodily injury are essentially equivalent.
The decision also confirms that when an appellate court identifies a sentencing error, the appropriate remedy is a full remand for resentencing rather than piecemeal modification on appeal. This preserves the trial court's discretion to reconsider the entire sentencing structure, including choices between upper and midterm sentences, in light of the corrected legal framework.