Our clients often look at the charges alleged against them and comment something to the effect of, “well, is this allowed? I am being charged with three different crimes for doing one thing.” Our response is, “no under most circumstances.” The following case exemplifies one of those circumstances.

Michael Hong Louie and Soriyaa Ek were both validated gang members. They were convicted of arson, criminal threats and street terrorism. The underlying facts are that Louie and Ek, in January of 2007, allegedly set fire to a Stockton, California, apartment of a woman who repeatedly reported gang activity in her neighborhood. The crime could be characterized or interpreted as retaliation.

Both defendants were also charged with attempted murder, but the jury returned a not guilty verdict on the attempted murder charges. It merits mention that for one to be convicted of attempted murder, the jury must find that the defendant intended to kill, but was prevented from doing so for some reason. With street terrorism, there is no intent to kill requirement. Rather, defendant must intend to cause anxiety or fear in defendant only, meaning there is no intent to kill.

Ek was sentenced to a total of fourteen years to life in state prison, plus nine years and fourth months. Louie was sentenced to a total of seven years to life, plus five years.

Both defendants challenged their sentences for street terrorism (eight months for Ek and two years for Louie) because their sentences were based on the underlying acts of threatening the witness and burning her apartment, acts for which they received punishment for dissuading a witness and arson. In other words, the punishment for street terrorism was redundant and thus unfair.

The Third Appellate District, in People v. Michael Hong Louie (2012 DJDAR 1777) agreed. The Court relied upon Penal Code