Sometimes even the best of plans go awry. Almost right out of a movie, Brandi Bradley enticed a casino customer to leave the casino to “party.” The plan was simple. Once Brandi got the victim, – in the words of the Court, “a Mr. Mataya, [who] wore enough gold, diamond, and ruby jewelry to mark him as the right kind of target” liquored up and into his car, two men planned to jump in the car at a predesignated spot to rob him, stuff him in the trunk and leave him there.
Unfortunately, Mataya was either so drunk or just couldn’t pull it together that when the time came to put him in the trunk, he couldn’t get it open. Frustrated, the two men pumped eight shots into Mataya and sped away.
Fortunately for Mataya, he survived. Unfortunately for Brandi, she got caught – as if we couldn’t figure out that was going to happen given her brilliant planning.
This case is more interesting for its facts, but here’s the actual holding: previously depublished, but certified for publication today, the California Court of Appeal found that although Brandi could be convicted of two crimes, she could not be consecutively sentenced for both crimes because she only intended to commit one: rob Mataya.
Kind of reminds me of my first appellate case, Hajek v. Iowa Board of Parole regarding sentence enhancements for committing two, separate consecutive crimes. While in law school as a student, I succeeded in reversing the Iowa Court of Appeal and the Iowa Attorney General.
The moral of these stories is that it never pays to commit a crime twice, or for that matter, two crimes.