APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Johnson, Judge. (Super.Ct.No. RIF138622) Affirmed as modified.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: McKinster J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In an amended information filed on September 8, 2009, defendant and appellant Erfen M. Sanchez was charged with (1) the murder of Raquel Mendoza (Raquel) under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1); (2) gross vehicular manslaughter resulting in the death of Raquel under Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (d) (count 2); driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury to Andres Mendoza (Andres) under Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) (count 3); driving with a specified blood-alcohol percentage causing injury to Andres under Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (b) (count 4); and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injuries under Vehicle Code sections 20001, subdivision (a) and 20003 (counts 5-6).*fn1
On September 15, 2009, a jury convicted defendant of all charges. The trial court sentenced defendant to two indeterminate 15-year-to-life terms, to run consecutive with a determinate sentence of three years eight months. The indeterminate terms consisted of two concurrent 15-year-to-life sentences imposed on the murder and gross vehicular manslaughter counts. The determinate term was composed of the midterm of three years on one of the hit and run charges (count 5), and a consecutive one-third of the midterm sentence of eight months on one of the driving under the influence causing injury charges (count 3). Moreover, midterm sentences were imposed on counts 4 and 6, but ordered to run concurrent with the other counts.
On appeal, defendant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court erred in imposing concurrent prison terms under section 654. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the parties and modify the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant only challenges his sentence, not the sufficiency of evidence. Therefore, only a brief version of the facts will be provided.
On the evening of August 19, 2007, defendant was driving his truck down a residential street at a speed of approximately 70 miles per hour. Defendant drove through a stop sign and into an intersection, without touching the brakes. As he entered the intersection, defendant's truck crashed into the passenger side of a vehicle driven by Andres. Andres's mother, Raquel, was riding in the ...