People v. Whitmer

RUSHING, J.,*

Dissenting.-I am unable to concur in either the reasoning of the majority opinion or in its result.1 At its core is the proposition that cases interpreting People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 [11 Cal.Rptr. 543, 360 P.2d 39] (Bailey) have mistakenly understood that case to require the aggregation of multiple thefts into a single charge whenever the thefts arise from a" `common scheme or plan.' " (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 742, quoting jury finding under Pen. Code, former § 12022.6, subd. (b) (section 12022.6(b)).) Because the jury here found such a "common scheme or plan" in a…